Opinion 01-2020

Appendix 1 UAS flight authorisation request form referred to in Article 6(4) The UAS flight authorisation request form shall comprise the following information: (1) Aircraft identification; (2) Flight rules (mode) (VLOS, BVLOS); (3) Type of flight (special operations, cargo operations, unmanned with people on board); (4) Category of operation (‘open’, ‘specific’, ‘certified’) and UAS aircraft class (C1, C2, etc.) or UAS type certificate if applicable; (5) Flight path (coordinates of start, intermediate and end points) and associated altitudes or height; (6) Estimated take-off time; (7) Altitude (the vertical position reference QNH, QFE, WGS-84); (8) Cruising speed(s); (9) Estimated landing time; (10) Identification technology (ADS-B, FLARM, Mode S, WIFI, etc.); (11) Expected connectivity methods (a flag indicating whether it is expected that telemetry will be available during the flight); (12) Contact URL (URL for contacting the UAS operator/remote pilot); (13) Endurance; (14) Applicable emergency for C2 loss; (15) Registration of the UAS operator/aircraft; (16) Other information. EN 1 EN  Appendix 2 Certificate for U-space service provider referred to in Article 17 (2) CERTIFICATE FOR U-SPACE SERVICE PROVIDER [CERTIFICATE NUMBER/ISSUE No] Pursuant to Regulation (EU) …/… (and to Regulation (EU) …/...) and subject to the conditions specified below, the [competent authority] hereby certifies [NAME OF THE U-SPACE SERVICE PROVIDER] [ADDRESS OF THE U-SPACE SERVICE PROVIDER] as a U-space service provider with the privileges, as listed in the attached service provision conditions. CONDITIONS: This certificate is limited to the conditions and the scope of providing services as listed in the attached service provision conditions. This certificate is valid whilst the certified U-space service provider remains in compliance with Regulation (EU) …/… and the other applicable regulations and, when relevant, with the procedures in the U-space service provider’s documentation as required by Regulation (EU) …/…, Part-…. Subject to compliance with the foregoing conditions, this certificate shall remain valid unless it has been surrendered, limited, suspended or revoked. Date of issue: Signed: [Competent authority] EN 2 EN  U-SPACE SERVICE PROVISION CONDITIONS has obtained the privileges to provide the following scope of U-space services: (Delete lines as appropriate) Services Type of service Conditions Limitations* Geo-awareness E-identification U-space services Traffic information service Flight authorisation Tracking service Weather service Conformance monitoring service Other (as defined by the Member State) EN 3 EN  Appendix 3 CERTIFICATE FOR CIS PROVIDER EUROPEAN UNION COMPETENT AUTHORITY CIS PROVIDER CERTIFICATE [CERTIFICATE NUMBER/ISSUE No] Pursuant to Regulation (EU) …/… (and to Regulation (EU) …/...) and subject to the conditions specified below, the [competent authority] hereby certifies [NAME OF THE CIS PROVIDER] [ADDRESS OF THE CIS PROVIDER] as a CIS provider. CONDITIONS: This certificate is limited to the conditions and the scope of providing common information service. This certificate is valid whilst the certified CIS provider remains in compliance with Regulation (EU) …/… and the other applicable regulations and, when relevant, with the procedures in the CIS provider’s documentation as required by Regulation (EU) …/…, Part-…. Subject to compliance with the foregoing conditions, this certificate shall remain valid unless it has been surrendered, limited, suspended or revoked. Date of issue: Signed: [Competent authority] EN 4 EN Appendix to Opinion No 01/2020 Comment-response document (CRD) to draft Opinion Page 1 of 33 Following the consultation on the draft Opinion on U-space between 8 and 30 October 2019, this CRD provides: — a summary of the comments provided on the explanatory note — a summary of the comments on the draft regulation, the responses and the resulting changes to the rule text. NOTE: In this document, the amendments proposed to the articles are subject to changes until the regulation is adopted and published in the EU Official Journal. Page 2 of 33  Table of contents Explanatory Note ...................................................................................................................... 5 THE EASA PROCESS ........................................................................................................... 5 THE REGULATION SHOULD NOT PRESCRIBE ANY DETAILED TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS ..... 5 AVOIDING GROUND RISK SHOULD BE HIGHLIGHTED ...................................................... 5 AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATION AND RULES ARE NEEDED ...................................................... 6 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES NEED TO BE CLARIFIED .................................................... 6 NATIONAL AND MILITARY ASPECT OF SHARING THE FLIGHT INTENT ............................. 6 ANSPS’ ROLE IN U-SPACE .................................................................................................. 6 NEED FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE GIVEN DEFINITIONS AND EXPRESSIONS ................... 6 NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE DOCUMENT APPLIES TO ‘MANNED’ OR ‘UNMANNED’ AIRCRAFT/OPERATORS ..................................................................................................... 6 COMMENTS ON FIGURE 1 ................................................................................................ 7 REGULATING THE MARKET IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE EASA WORK ........................ 7 COMMON INFORMATION FUNCTION .............................................................................. 7 OBLIGATION OF MANNED AIRCRAFT OPERATORS TO SHARE THEIR POSITION .............. 7 U-SPACE REGULATION IMPACT ON OTHER USERS OF U-SPACE AIRSPACE...................... 7 U-SPACE SERVICES ............................................................................................................ 8 AIR TAXIS .......................................................................................................................... 8 REFERENCES TO SERA AND ICAO RULES ........................................................................... 8 DETECT AND AVOID SYSTEM ............................................................................................ 9 U-SPACE AS A SEGREGATED AIRSPACE............................................................................. 9 FLEXIBILITY ALLOWS FOR TOO MUCH LOCAL VARIANTS ................................................. 9 PRICING OF U-SPACE ........................................................................................................ 9 OTHER COMMENTS .......................................................................................................... 9 Draft Regulation ....................................................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER I ...................................................................................................................... 10 PRINCIPLES AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................... 10 CHAPTER II ..................................................................................................................... 12 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE U-SPACE ............................................................................... 12 CHAPTER III .................................................................................................................... 16 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRCRAFT OPERATORS AND PROVIDERS IN U-SPACE AIRSPACE ........................................................................................................................ 16 CHAPTER IV .................................................................................................................... 20 U-SPACE SERVICES ......................................................................................................... 20 CHAPTER V ..................................................................................................................... 26 U-SPACE SERVICE PROVIDERS CERTIFICATION ............................................................ 26 Page 3 of 33 CHAPTER VI .................................................................................................................... 29 COMPETENT AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................... 29 CHAPTER VII ................................................................................................................... 31 PRICING OF U-SPACE SERVICES .................................................................................... 31 CHAPTER VIII .................................................................................................................. 32 FINAL PROVISIONS ........................................................................................................ 32 Page 4 of 33  Explanatory Note The comments on the explanatory note covered many different topics, some of them directly related to the technical content of the draft regulation while others were related to the conceptual approach in relation to U-space. As the Agency provides a new explanatory note to the Opinion, neither responses nor text amendments will be provided. These will be provided in relation with the comments made on the articles. MAIN COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 1 (ABOUT THIS DRAFT OPINION) AND CHAPTER 2 (IN SUMMARY – WHY AND WHAT) OF THE DRAFT OPINION THE EASA PROCESS — The accelerated procedure used is too rushed. Many questions remain unanswered. — U-space is not a mature and stable system. Many parameters are still unknown. The proposed framework is not necessary at this time. — Performing focused consultation only for such an important issue is not appropriate. — Further rulemaking in this area shall follow the standard rulemaking procedure. — No sufficient justification for the development of a Regulation? Need for a ‘proof of concept’. THE REGULATION SHOULD NOT PRESCRIBE ANY DETAILED TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS — The scope of the regulation should be commensurate with the actual maturity of the drone operational environment. — The regulation should concentrate on requirements for safety, security and harmonisation and should not address in detail technical issues such as architecture, services and flight rules yet. — The regulation establishes constraints that will induce undue costs for the industry and airspace users. — The proposal is likely to prevent innovation, flexibility and a sustainable competitive market in this rapidly evolving sector. — It would be more beneficial if this Opinion focused on the strategic and pre-tactical areas, and waited to see how the industry develops. AVOIDING GROUND RISK SHOULD BE HIGHLIGHTED — The U-space regulation should more clearly state that U-space services aim at both air and ground risk mitigation. — It is not clear how the ground risk is addressed within the proposal. Page 5 of 33 AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATION AND RULES ARE NEEDED — Airspace classification and U-space flight rules should be a part of this regulation. — Airspace classification has to be based on the maturity of U-space services. It is difficult to address services without the link to the airspace classification. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES NEED TO BE CLARIFIED — There is a need to clarify the roles and responsibilities of those taking part in U-space. — The roles of ANSPs & USSPs as well as the relation between U-space services and ATS services have to be defined. NATIONAL AND MILITARY ASPECT OF SHARING THE FLIGHT INTENT — Operators of flights for national security purposes will not provide full information of their flight details. That framework shall take into consideration the legitimate need of some users to have their flight information protected. — Military will not always accept to be cooperative in the scope of real operations or NATO exercises. — The U-space should integrate the creation of dynamic no-fly zones. ANSPS’ ROLE IN U-SPACE — The market will not be competitive if currently certified ANSPs are not allowed to provide UTM. Any entity that on equal terms is qualified and able to provide CIF or U-space services should be allowed to provide U-space services. — The proposed text is discriminating and against the free market principles/law of the Union. — If ANSPs are excluded from providing U-space services, this goes against operational reality. NEED FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE GIVEN DEFINITIONS AND EXPRESSIONS — Improvement of the definitions is required. — U-space is not properly defined. Its mission is missed in the definition. — The term ‘U-space’ is misleading. It leads to considering an airspace classification rather than a whole concept of air management. — All terminology concerning drones should be rationalised in parallel with ATM/ANS. NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE DOCUMENT APPLIES TO ‘MANNED’ OR ‘UNMANNED’ AIRCRAFT/OPERATORS — This draft is unclear about its scope of applicability when referring to aircraft and aircraft operators; there is a need to know if a specific requirement applies only to unmanned ones or to manned or both. — It is not clear if VTOL aircraft and manned GA can use the services of U-space. Page 6 of 33 COMMENTS ON FIGURE 1 — It is unclear if the USSP Platform is a system (central) or an integration (communication) between USSPs. — The diagram seems to indicate that there are two distinct flows of data/information exchange between ATS (units) and USSPs (a first one via the CIF, a second one directly). Clarification is needed on the data exchanged using both ways. — ATS should have direct and secure access to the relevant airspace information for flight safety purposes at all times. REGULATING THE MARKET IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE EASA WORK — Requirements related to market regulation and competition is not in line with the remit given to EASA via Regulation (EU) 2018/1139. Market regulation is not part of the EASA mandate. The EASA regulation focus should be on safety. — Mixing safety, security and market aspects into one regulation is a very ambitious and challenging approach. Consider market aspects to be handled in a separate regulation. — The intent of imposing market regulation is not clear, since it is questionable if a European market exists. COMMON INFORMATION FUNCTION — The CIF/FIMS differences are not very clear. The same applies for the USSP platform. — There could be no candidate to provide the CIF and all the services described. — It is not specified which entity is to provide the Common Information Function (CIF) as well what kind of certification will have. — Change the classification from 'Function' (CIF) to 'Service' (CIS). — The CIF and the USSP Platform should not be separate but should provide all centralised services (not just data provision) in combination. OBLIGATION OF MANNED AIRCRAFT OPERATORS TO SHARE THEIR POSITION — The proposal is based on the assumption that all airspace users will generally behave cooperatively. Some aircraft operators would share their position voluntarily, while others would not like to be seen. — It remains unclear how the expectation of sharing flight intent in uncontrolled airspace is to be achieved. — Sharing flight intent is not a manned aircraft operator responsibility. It is the ATS provider’s responsibility to share the required information with the U-space service provider. U-SPACE REGULATION IMPACT ON OTHER USERS OF U-SPACE AIRSPACE — U-space has to be the foundation for the future co-existence of manned and unmanned aviation. — The integration of UAS in manned aviation should be clarified. Page 7 of 33 — The draft Opinion does not clearly define the relation between U-space services and ATS. — The current aviation environment should be kept as it is in order to keep the current safety of flights and benefit of experience. UAS operations should be a complement and should adapt to the manned aircraft environment. U-SPACE SERVICES — There is a need to clarify which services are mandatory and which are optional. — The requirement for U-space service providers to be responsible for de-confliction service is not feasible as there will be areas where tactical de-confliction is not possible. — U-space services should be limited to e-identification, geo-awareness and flight authorisation. — It is not clear why registration service (a prerequisite for e-identification) is not part of the U- space services list. — Traffic information should not be considered to be a mandatory service, as some operators may operate in U-space without the need for it (open category, within VLOS, at low risk and conducting short duration operations) — U-space airspace will be also used by actors who cannot comply with U-space services due to the nature of their operation (e.g. non-powered sailplanes). — Dispersing one U-space system of UAV operations management and coordination into a number of individual services is a threat to creating a safe, integrated and interoperable U-space environment, due to a large number of different suppliers providing their services individually. It will also significantly increase the costs. AIR TAXIS — The draft Opinion should mention urban air mobility taxis, which will be flying in the urban areas where U-space will be established. — Clarification is needed whether a piloted or autonomous VTOL air taxi would be treated like a drone for flight authorisations. REFERENCES TO SERA AND ICAO RULES — It is unclear whether SERA rules apply to U-space airspace and what the interaction between those two sets of rules is. — According to SERA, ANSPs are responsible for separation between aircraft. — Applicability of ICAO rules of air set out in Annex II to Chicago Convention: ICAO already includes UAS in the category of aircraft, and they share the same airspace. It is not sure if the airspace above the international waters within a State FIR can be classified as U-space. — It is not sure if, in case of covering all airspace by U-space, SERA and ICAO rules will be applicable. — If drones are to be operated in SES, several issues need to be addressed such as SES certification of the U-space provider, integration of the U-space into the SERA Regulation and the clarification of responsibility under the ICAO Convention. Page 8 of 33 DETECT AND AVOID SYSTEM — Importance of the DAA system in ensuring separation from manned aircraft; its validation should be given a priority in order to enable the potential of rapidly developing services. — The DAA system should be fulfilled before the introduction of U-space. UAS operations cannot go ahead until the problems of ‘tactical separation, and detect and avoid systems’ are solved. U-SPACE AS A SEGREGATED AIRSPACE — U-space airspace should be designated as a restricted area until UAS operations are integrated within the regular airspace. — The designation of U-space will cause segregation instead of integration of airspace. FLEXIBILITY ALLOWS FOR TOO MUCH LOCAL VARIANTS — Allowing flexibility for local variants of U-space may end up with 28 different types of implementation in the Member States instead of having a common European market for UAS and U-space services. — This flexibility goes against the need for harmonisation and for services to be based on standards that ‘should be validated in the European airspace and framework’. PRICING OF U-SPACE — UAS operators are the beneficiaries of the U-space and should therefore pay for U-space services. — GA should not pay for entering U-space, as none of the services is beneficial for them. — It is not acceptable to expect that ANSPs will provide information free of charge. OTHER COMMENTS — The protection of airports and their vicinity regarding the unlawful use of drones should be addressed. — Mobile telecom is already supporting UAS operations globally and should be considered in the regulation. — Cybersecurity needs to be highly considered to prevent the possibility that a USSP will use the data for other purposes than U-space services. Page 9 of 33  Draft Regulation CHAPTER I PRINCIPLES AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Article 1 – Subject matter and scope Main comments — ‘Open’ category should be within the scope of the Regulation. The IR requires to transmit e-ID and retrieve geo-fencing information. Also, manned aircraft fly in the whole FIR above U-space and should be kept safe by monitoring and alerting service if an ‘Open’ category unmanned aircraft climbs too high. — All UAS operations should be under the Regulation and services provided should be free of charge. — Proposal to include reference to the qualified entities accredited on the basis of Article 69 of the EASA Basic Regulation. EASA assessment — The comments are accepted. However, it is considered that some very small UAS should not follow the requirements of the regulation, as they are not a potential hazard to other aircraft. In order to maintain a harmonised European approach, the regulation must be strict on the scope and not permit every Member State to decide which of the drones in the ‘open’ category should be subject to the rules or not. — It is legally not necessary to include the ‘qualified entities’ in the scope as it is up to each Member State to decide whether they want to use them. Amendment to Article 1 (resulting text) This article now includes the ‘open’ category in the scope of the regulation. However, subcategory A1 unmanned aircraft that have a maximum take-off mass (MTOM) of less than 250 g and a maximum speed of less than 19 m/s are exempted. This is also the case for those in subcategory A1 that are marked as class C0. Article 2 – Objectives Main comments — The objective of providing efficient air traffic services to UAS seems like an important objective. — This provision states that Member States may be in a position to create this market when there are uncertainties on the viability of the market. Page 10 of 33 — A safety regulation cannot ensure economic regulation. The text on the conditions for an internal market for U-space services should be removed. EASA assessment The comments on the market aspect are noted and the comment proposing to add the term ‘efficient’ is accepted. Amendment to Article 2 (resulting text) Paragraph (d) has been now amended with the inclusion of the term ‘efficient’ in addition to ‘fair’ and ‘affordable’. Article 3 – Definitions Main comments — Reference to other regulations for definitions is making the understanding more difficult. Delete the reference and add the definitions from the referenced documents. — Common Information Function (CIF) and USSP platform need to be defined. — Add the following definitions: ‘U-space service provider’, ‘UAS operator’, 'common information function (or service)', E-identification service', 'Geo-awareness service', 'Flight authorisation service', 'Traffic Information Service', 'Tracking Service', 'Weather Information Service", 'Conformance monitoring service'. — Principal place of business: A company's main head office with its financial functions can be separated from the location of the operational control. — Clarification on the following part of the definition ‘Open communication protocols’: ‘standards that allow two or more entities of a given system to communicate with each other.’ It is not clear how this type of communication will work. — ‘U-space’: not all operations can be processed in an automated way. — U-space could be a mix of digital and analogue system. Therefore, reference to an established infrastructure would be better. — The definition of U-space should be amended to include manned aviation as well. — The definition of the U-space airspace shall be consistent with the existing UAS geographical zones. EASA assessment — Some clarity needs to be brought to the definitions. — Some terms such as ‘CIF’ and ‘USSP Platform’ are not used anymore. — With regard to ‘UAS operator’, this term is already defined in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 and does not need to be repeated here, as the appropriate reference Page 11 of 33  is being made in the introductory sentence of this article (which is the standard legal approach for all EU regulations). Amendment to Article 3 (resulting text) — The ‘U-space’ definition has been deleted. — ‘U-space service provider’ and ‘connectivity’ definitions have been added. — The ‘U-space airspace’ definition has been amended. CHAPTER II ESTABLISHMENT OF THE U-SPACE Article 4 – Designation of U-space Main comments — Clarification on the consultation needed in case U-space airspace is cross-border. — The notion of ‘restricted airspace’ implies that the restrictions will affect the traditional aviation. — Designation of U-space should take into account the existing airspace design and air operations. — Member States should be encouraged to designate all airspace as U-Space and apply suitable classification within U-Space airspace to reduce complexity of airspace structures throughout Europe. — The authorisation in controlled airspace shall be done by ATC. — Not clear how the manned aviation will be informed of the status of the U-space. — Providing services outside designated U-space is unclear; in particular, the criteria for being designated or not designated airspace with more or less same services. — Provision of U-space services should not be confined to certain airspace classes only, but instead be operation-centric. — U-space airspace should not be an airspace that excludes certain types of air traffic (no restricted area or segregated airspace), UAS shall share the airspace with the existing manned aircraft (integration). — Manned aircraft may continue today’s operations with no need for change. — Add that the U-space airspace will not be active until a UTM service provider is established. — The reference to the acceptable level of safety is not defined. Need for real-time risk assessment methodology with a quantitative basis for UAS operations and UTM operations within their airspace. — Clarification on the relationship between U-space and geographical zones. Page 12 of 33 — It is unclear how the designation of volumes of airspace as U-space would affect existing classifications of airspace. — U-space has potentially significant and disruptive implications for existing airspace users, particularly those who predominantly operate in uncontrolled airspace. EASA assessment The comments related to this article show that there was a lack of clarity in the intention of this article. EASA has re-drafted this paragraph to clarify the responsibilities of the air navigation service providers and U-space service providers, in both controlled and uncontrolled airspace. The regulation should also be clear on the airspace as U-space. The elements related to the designation of the airspace and the cross-border aspect should be clarified. Amendment to Article 4 (resulting text) Article 4 has been amended to clarify: — that U-space airspace can be in controlled or uncontrolled airspace or designated on a temporary or permanent basis; — who is responsible in which airspace (controlled/uncontrolled) and for what type of aircraft operations (manned/unmanned); — what services are mandatory in which airspace (controlled/uncontrolled); — the type of coordination is required when U-space airspace is cross-border; — that Member States may mandate any other U-space services based on a risk assessment. Article 5 – Common information function Main comments — Traffic data should be provided as well. — Clarity on how this service will be funded. — CIF (better CIS) should also disseminate the dynamic info relevant to authorisation — procedural or collaborative with ATC. — Certified ANSPs should be allowed to provide U-space services. — Sharing of info free of charge is highly questionable. — Common and shared picture of the airspace is essential for the ATS, in particular during the unexpected developments. — The regulation shall ensure harmonised implementation. — Several organisations shall provide CIF in the same airspace. — European standards for traffic information and communication protocols needed. — To use a concept of ‘FIMS’ or ‘CIS’ with a specific manager/provider. Page 13 of 33 — Clarification needed for the ‘discovery function’. — Many comments questioned the need for a structural separation between CIF and USSP and why ANSPs are excluded. EASA/EC assessment Most of the comments are accepted. It is now proposed to better clarify the concept of the common information, who provides the information and how the availability of the information can be ensured. In addition, it is important to clarify more explicitly the obligations of the CIS provider in terms of data quality requirements, connectivity interface protocols, etc. On Article 5.5.: ANSPs are not excluded from being active as USSPs. However, the monopolistic provider of the CIF cannot be active in the downstream market as a USSP. Competition requires that all USSPs need to get exactly the same information with the same quality at exactly the same moment. When an entity combines the functions of CIF and USSP, there would be a clear conflict of interest between its business interests as a USSP and its obligation to serve all competing USSPs at the same terms and conditions. The best solution to avoid such a conflict of interest is to impose a structural separation between the CIS monopoly and the competitive USSP market. The regulation allows ANSPs to enter the U-space services market; an ANSP may even be designated CIF and enter the U-space services market outside the U-space airspace for which it is designated. Therefore, no change is proposed and Article 5.5 remains unchanged (now Article 5.6) Amendment to Article 5 (resulting text) Article 5 has been revised as follows: — throughout the article (and the regulation), the common information function has been replaced with common information service (CIS); — a CIS provider has been introduced and is designated by the Member State; — the CIS needs to contain a list of certified U-space service providers. Article 6 – The inter U-space service provider platform Main comments — The establishment and maintenance of the inter USSP platform should be clarified. — Inter-USSP platform may give the big players a dominant role. — Discovery function needs to be clarified. — Critical common functionalities should be served by one inter-service USSP. — Lack of clarity in the platform concept and responsibilities/liabilities. — The concept of ‘founding U-Space Service Providers’ is not understood. — Add more information about the inter U-space service provider platform. Page 14 of 33 — It is not clear why all these functions cannot be provided directly by the ANSPs CIF as Member States may decide to integrate and provide the platform as part of the CIF. EASA assessment This article raised many questions. The relationship between the platform and CIF brought some uncertainty about the functioning of the system. The intention of the USSP platform was to provide a complete picture of how the system should work. At the same time, this platform seemed to constitute more a means by which the information should be exchanged than the end objective of a given architecture. Therefore, it is proposed to remove this article to avoid confusion, but to keep the necessary elements contained in it and maintain the respective requirements set for the different actors of the U-space. Amendment to Article 6 (resulting text) This article has been removed. Article 7 – U-space priority rules Main comments — Clarification required for the application of prioritisation in case several USSPs provide services in the same airspace. — This article is hard to achieve for VLOS operations. — Lack of clarity in the role of USSP and ANSP in priority establishment and the related responsibilities. — Does not fit to have prioritisation rules without having rules of the air. — Priorities are not justified and not in line with the current ATM authorities. — Most likely it will not be feasible to give priority to unpredictable traffic i.e. HEMS. — Not feasible for two BVLOS. — The rule that UAS must give way to other traffic is not negotiable (non-motorised flyers). — Add information on off normal/emergency situations. — Clarify difference between flight authorisation and the operational authorisation as defined in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947. — It is not clear why an aircraft carrying passengers to summer holidays would have priority over an unmanned aircraft performing the inspection of the railway line — one competitor is given an inappropriate advantage without a proper justification. Page 15 of 33 EASA assessment It is reminded that the priority rules are those that apply only for the granting of the flight authorisation and in the order proposed. This order has been carefully assessed and it is not considered that it should be changed. However, it has been considered that two priority rules were missing and they have now been included. Amendment to Article 7 (resulting text) The priority rules are now contained in Article 14 related to the flight authorisation service as it is closely linked to this service. The main change is the addition of two priority rules: — when an aircraft is in distress; and — when two flight authorisation requests have the same priority. CHAPTER III GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRCRAFT OPERATORS AND PROVIDERS IN U-SPACE AIRSPACE Article 8 – UAS operators Main comments — Registration information shall be provided by CAA, CIF. — Use of consistent terminology: ‘UAS operator’ not ‘Unmanned aircraft operators’. — Clarification request for the unique identifier of UAO. — Details on registration info and mandatory information of UAS and operator to be provided. — Provision in the regulation is needed for situations where UAS operators and U-space service providers cannot connect. — There should be provision for fall-back options if systems do not operate as intended. — The article shall specify when the FPL shall be submitted prior to the flight. — Point (c) to be clarified — what ‘connectivity’ means. EASA assessment The comments underlined the need to be more complete in terms of obligations for UAS operators, in particular about the information that would need to be provided. The outcome of the consultation required a deep review of this article in order to provide the missing necessary requirements. Amendment to Article 8 This article (now Article 6) now includes: — the criteria for dissemination of the flight plan; — the information to be provided to U-space services providers; Page 16 of 33 — the details on the registration by reference to Regulation (EU) 2019/947; — the obligation to ensure that UAS operators are connected to U-space service providers; and — contingency measures. Article 9 – Obligation for manned aircraft to provide data to U-space service providers Main comments — Additional equipment for U-space is considered unacceptable. — Use of ATC FPL is considered the appropriate way of providing the information. — Additional burden since in class ‘G’ airspace normally dissemination of intent/FPL is not required. — SERA is considered the better regulatory tool. — Vertical position data needs to be established for this type of information. — Specify how the necessary expenses will be covered. — Define term ‘close proximity’. — The ‘manner acceptable to the Agency’ is not clear. — The article should be carefully assessed to better understand what will be its impact on GA, and HEMS flights. Also, Air Force is a frequent user of VLL. EASA assessment — The main concern on this article relates to the potential impact on manned aircraft. It is acknowledged that the intent might be difficult to provide. Currently, and until a full integration of manned aircraft with unmanned aircraft is feasible in the U-space airspace, the way to ensure safe operations of manned aircraft when entering in an area where drones are flying is to request some information. Without this information, U-space service providers are not able to identify if a manned aircraft will fly into the U-space. EASA shall ensure that the future conspicuity devices are able to provide the necessary data to ensure safe operations. — The intent of this article is now to specify the kind of information to be provided to the U-space service providers. — There is a need to take into account that manned aircraft operators can fly in uncontrolled airspace but also in airspaces where there is uncontrolled traffic within controlled airspaces such as VFR traffic within class E airspace. Amendment to Article 9 (resulting text) This article (now Article 7) has been amended as follows: — The obligation to include the information about the aircraft position to be provided as well as a sufficient level of performance. Page 17 of 33 — This obligation also applies when operators of manned aircraft operate as uncontrolled traffic within in the U-space airspace designated in controlled airspace — The terms ‘intent, estimated and actual’ as well as the term ‘close proximity’ have been removed. Article 10 – U-space service providers Main comments — This article leaves too much freedom to the U-space providers, e.g. due to the lack of prescribed data formats or standard data messages. This will cause enormous fragmentation. European control is needed to enable harmonisation. — Industry standards should be used. — There is no provision on the expected quality of service. — It is not clear what information is in the unique identification. — It is unclear how USSPs are linked with the ATS providers concerned. There is no uplink information flow from USSPs to ATS. Possibly the figure implies that ANSPs shall connect to inter-USSP. — Cybersecurity risks to be addressed. — What is the information required and criteria to determine a flight may be authorised? This should be an automated system. — It is not clear how manned aviation will exchange (traffic) information when entering U-space. — A reliable connectivity service is the foundation enabling U-space services to work, which is missing in the proposal. In order for the ‘cooperative approach’ to function, airspace users must be guaranteed a reliable means of communication that ensures coverage, low delays and capacity while avoiding communication breaks and congestion. — Add the following situation: where an airspace managed by an ATS provider overlaps with a U- space airspace, the U-space service providers concerned shall establish contractual arrangements with the ATS providers. EASA assessment The comments are noted and most of them have been accepted. Amendment to Article 10 (resulting text) This article (now Article 8) has been clarified as follows: — The quality of services to be delivered is in accordance with the service level agreements. — The retention of data is proposed to be 30 days. — The unique identification is removed and replaced by the information listed in the network identification service. Page 18 of 33 — The U-space service providers have to ensure secure connectivity and data quality and data protection. This article contains the new following requirements: — To check, reject or accept the flight plan submitted to them; — Exchange of information through the appropriate interfaces; — Arrangements when there are conflicting authorisation requests; and — Report to the competent authority when they start, cease or restart operations. Article 11 – Collaboration between U-space service providers and aircraft operators Main comments — This article should be limited to UAS operators. No need for specific arrangements between USSPs and aircraft operators. — Contractual agreements will most probably result in too many different local rules that will totally saturate the capability of manned aircraft pilots to be clearly informed. — It is not understood how this could work in practice. NCO aircraft operators cannot establish a contract with a USSP. The U-space regulation is to define provisions for safe operation between aircraft operators and U-space operators. This cannot be ensured by an individual contract. — Remuneration and liability need to be specified in order to set up a coherent European framework. — The service level should be agreed with the competent authority. Otherwise, each service provider may negotiate different service levels in the same U-space airspace with their operators. — Clarify the ‘other service providers’. EASA assessment This article should only apply to UAS operators. However, service level agreements are already required by U-space service providers and UAS operators, in their respective requirements (Articles 6 and 8). Therefore, this article is not necessary to maintain. Amendment to Article 11 This article has been removed. Page 19 of 33  Article 12 – Occurrence reporting Main comments — There should be a reference to Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 on the reporting, analysis and follow-up of occurrences in civil aviation. — Replace Article 12 with reference to Regulation (EU) No 376/2014. It is unclear why separate occurrence reporting is required. — The occurrence reporting must fulfil the requirements of Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 on the reporting, analysis and follow-up of occurrences in civil aviation. EASA assessment Comments accepted. Amendment to Article 12 This article (now Article 9) now refers to Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the reporting, analysis and follow-up of occurrences in civil aviation. CHAPTER IV U-SPACE SERVICES Article 13 – E-identification service Main comments — Clarification about how the e-ID service correlates with requirements concerning identification and registration given by the delegated act. — It is not clear what is meant by ‘flight intent’. — E-ID is mandatory within the U-space airspace for UAS, while, on the other hand, some aircraft are not subject to this Regulation but will remain able to operate within the U-space airspace. — Traffic information cannot always be provided, especially in G airspace at low level. — It needs to be specified whether registration number relates to the UAV and/or the operator. — There are some uncertainties regarding the ‘serial number’. Clarification is needed if it is intended for unique identification of the UAS. — ‘Levels of access based on the credentials of the user’ — clarification of ‘credentials’ is needed. — ‘Tracking information’ is confusing. It is believed that tracking shouldn’t be mentioned in e-ID service. — Meaning of ‘vehicle registration’ needs to be clarified. It is not sure if it refers to the operator’s registration number or the drone’s registration number. Page 20 of 33 — To comply with this rule, every USSP should deploy ground receiving antennas to guarantee the coverage for the entire U-space airspace. Most service providers do not have technical systems that would receive broadcast E-ID transmissions. — The article mixes and incompletely describes the network remote identification and E- identification. EASA assessment It is acknowledged that clarification should be provided on what is the intent of this service. The comments are noted and due account is taken in the revised text. In order to distinguish this service from the remote identification service already included in Regulation (EU) 2019/945, this article provides a revised set of service requirements for the network identification. Amendment to Article 13 (resulting text) Based on the comments, this article (now Article 10) has been amended a follows: — the title of this service is ‘Network identification service’; — it clarifies the objective of this service; — it provides consistency with Regulation (EU) 2019/945 (remote identification) for the content of the distributed messages; — it puts the obligation on the competent authority to establish the level of access of authorised users; — it does not contain any reference to tracking information. Article 14 – Geo-awareness service Main comments — The definition and scope of the geo-awareness service is not clear nor which data has to be provided by whom to whom. — U-space airspace geometry is to be published by competent authorities to be made available to non-U-space users so that this airspace is not infringed. — The requirement should include that a ‘single source of truth’ for geo-awareness information shall be made available through the CIF. — City authorities to be included in the list of defined authorities. — Who is expected to provide this service and at what cost? — USSPs should be allowed to create non-fly zones in a pre-tactical and tactical phase in certain cases. — ‘Timely manner’ in relation to the update of ‘geo-awareness’ information is too vague and may lead to different interpretations. Page 21 of 33 — Updates shall include an indication of what information has changed. — A definition of ‘geo-awareness service’ is missing. — Data quality for geo-awareness service is missing. — Reference to ‘common altitude reference system’ is missing. — An industry standard is required at the level of AMC. EASA assessment It is acknowledged that this article should be improved to clarify: — the relationship between U-space volumes and UAS geographical zones; — the objective of this service; — the added-value of this service taking into account the requirements of the geo-awareness function in Regulation (EU) 2019/945. In addition, it is expected that the UAS Geographical Task Force (TF) will agree about the character of data defining a variety of zones. Currently, it is anticipated that not all data related to zones requires to be treated in line with Aeronautical Data Quality. However, data shall not be degraded within the respective data provision processes. The TF is currently defining a common digital format. Besides ISO, EUROCAE currently is developing a standard as well. The TF will make a final proposal for the respective AMC. Amendment to Article 14 (resulting text) The text of this article (now Article 11) has been now amended to better clarify that: — this service exists as support to the UAS geo-awareness system as a whole; — the geometry of all airspace with special access rules for UAS shall be provided to other applicable U-space service providers and not to operators; — the Member State shall specify which authorities may update or add to the geo-awareness information. Article 15 – Flight authorisation service Main comments — There is a need to clarify the relation between flight authorisation service and operational approval required for the ‘specific’ UAS category. — Concerns expressed when two flight plans with the same level of priority are requested and who makes the final decision. — It has to be defined what kind of authorisation(s) needs to be obtained and if the service provider must obtain it from the relevant authority, or if the operator must do this. — This article is understood as it exclusively concerns UAS operators. Page 22 of 33 — There won’t always be an automatic reply from the service, sometimes manual approval is needed. The word ‘automatically’ could be replaced by ‘immediately’ to ease the implementation of the service. — It is not clear what is meant by ‘airspace access information’. — It is not clear who is responsible for the strategic de-confliction. — ANSPs must remain responsible for controlled airspace and decide if UAS operations are possible. — Without clarifying the sharing of responsibilities between USSP and ABSP, this article leads to having two entities managing different operations inside the same airspace (controlled airspace under an ANSP management, and U-space restricted airspace under USSP management). — Terms used in the paragraphs, such as ‘authorisation requests’, ‘required notifications’, ‘voluntary notifications’, ‘regulatory information’, ‘acknowledgements’, ‘pre-authorisation information’, ‘manual authorisation information’ need to be clarified and sufficiently described. EASA assessment There is a need to improve the way this article was drafted, in terms of both structure and technical content. The entire article has been reconsidered to ensure consistency with the obligations of the UAS operators, U-space service providers and the requirements on the CIS provider as well as on the competent authorities. Amendment to Article 15 (resulting text) The text of this article (now Article 12) has been now amended to include: — the necessary coordination with ATS providers; — the priority rules to be followed when flight authorisation is granted, including the priority rules when two flight authorisations are requested. The text has been amended to better structure the provisions that pertain to each actor: — Paragraph 7 has been moved to the article related to the competent authority; — Paragraph 8 has been moved to the article related to the UAS operators; and — Paragraph 9 has been removed completely as it is not considered necessary given that this type of information is already contained in the common information service. Article 16 – Traffic information service Main comments — Traffic information and alerting service should be two separate services. — Clarification of the term ‘Traffic Information Service’ is needed. — It is not clear what kind of ‘alerts to the aircraft operator’ shall be provided. Page 23 of 33 — It is not clear how USSPs will provide position reports of non-cooperative manned aircraft that they cannot be aware of. — The notion of ‘floating decimal latitude’ is normally not used in aviation and therefore should be defined. — Further information on how to define ‘altitude’ and ‘time’ is needed. — The altitude reference used by the providers should be defined. EASA assessment The comments are accepted. This article has been redrafted to avoid misunderstanding with the traffic alert and tracking service that were both mentioned under this service. The revised text now clarifies the intent of the service and focuses on what information shall be included and from whom. Terms such as ‘alerts’, ‘floating decimal’ or ‘cooperative/non-cooperative’ have been removed to avoid confusion. Amendment to Article 16 (resulting text) The text of this article (now Article 13) has been amended: — to define the purpose of this service; — to clarify that the relevant information to be provided is real-time 3D position of the known air traffic, latitude, longitude, altitude, time of report and emergency status; — to require UAS operators to take action as soon as they receive traffic information. Article 17 – Tracking service Main comments — Tracking should not be mixed up with e-identification and traffic information. — Tracking service should also be mandatory. — It is unacceptable for such a service to not be available or to have any interruptions in the service. — The meaning of ‘track report’ is not clear. — Clarify if ‘the identity of the unmanned aircraft and operator’ refers to the serial number and the operators’ registration number? — Clarify who is responsible for fusing U-space and ATM tracks in the remit of inter-USSP platform/CIF. EASA assessment The text now takes into account the comments and ensures consistency with Regulation (EU) 2019/945. However, most of the content remains. Page 24 of 33 Amendment to Article 17 (resulting text) The text (now Article 14) has been amended as follows: — it is explicitly mentioned that the objective is to associate consecutive surveillance observations of the same UAS flight into tracks (with current position, heading and speed); — the track updates are now to be determined by the competent authority. Article 18 – Weather information service Main comments — Units: requesting (kilo-)metres in lieu of Statute Miles. — Who may provide the weather service between traditional MET providers and other weather providers. — Clarify the types of MET services to be provided and those that do not have to be provided. — Choose between a prescriptive or performance-based approach. Need to specify every parameter in detail or to simply state that the weather information must be adequate to support a safe operation. EASA assessment The comments related to the units are accepted. With regard to the comments related to who will provide this service, it is considered that it should not be regulated at EU level but left to the decision of the Member States, as it is the case under the SES regulation where Member States may designate a provider of MET services. Amendment to Article 18 (resulting text) The text (now Article 15) has been amended as follows: — Speed is measured in metres/second; — Visibility is measured in metres and kilometres instead of statute miles. Article 19 – Conformance monitoring service Main comments — The intention of this article is not clear if this service is mandatory only when flight authorisation is necessary. — It could be stated more clearly whether the conformance monitoring service is optional or not. — This service should not be limited only for authorised operations, it can also manage the UAV not requiring an authorisation and monitor that they do not infringe the regulation. Page 25 of 33 — Who will be responsible for providing the conformance monitoring service? — Proper notifications should be sent also to authorities/airspace managers/ANSPs. — Alerts should be sent to the person who controls the UAS (remote pilot), not the company which has the approval to operate. — Concerns that this service requires other aircraft to carry equipment able to receive this information. EASA assessment The comments are accepted. The text has been slightly re-drafted accordingly. The conformance monitoring service shall be used when it is needed to support another service. In addition, the alert is provided not only to UAS operators but also to authorities and other U-space service providers. Amendment to Article 19 (resulting text) The text (now Article 16) has been amended to clarify that: — this service applies to UAS operators; — the alert will be activated also when the UAS operator does not meet its obligation under Article 6(1). CHAPTER V U-SPACE SERVICE PROVIDERS CERTIFICATION Article 20 – Application for a U-space service provider certificate Main comments All service providers connected to the U-space system shall be certified and subject to oversight to ensure the safety of the system and the integrity of data. EASA assessment Because of the amendment to Article 5 (CIS) — the regulation now includes a service provider for providing the common information service — this article needs to be amended accordingly. Therefore, all the requirements for a U-space service provider now apply to the CIS provider as regards the application for a certificate, and a new template for certificate has been introduced for the CIS provider. Amendment to Article 20 (resulting text) The text (now Article 17) has been amended to include CIS providers. Page 26 of 33  Article 21 – Conditions for obtaining a certificate Main comments — It is unclear what level of guarantee is required and appropriate to meet the intention of this regulation and the risk management approach that underpins the aviation regulatory systems. — Net capital reference should be removed, as it will discriminate against small companies. — Management system should be proportionate to the risk. — Suggest to replace ‘in view of the intended operations’ by ‘in view of the most risky operation expected’. — It is unclear what ‘the objectives set for the service provided’ are and where these are clearly documented. — Without clear direction on the level of safety (per Article 4(5)) as applicable to the U-space services, it is impossible to ascertain if this regulation is at all achievable. — No means of compliance have been defined for the mandatory safety assessment. — Standards should also include the security protection. Proposal to add ‘assurance confidence level and security requirements’. — Competent authority and EASA should not be evaluating financial positions or business cases of USSPs. Delete paragraphs 3 and 6. Remove ‘or financial performance’ from Article 22, paragraphs 3 and 4. EASA assessment Because of the amendment to Article 5 (CIS) — the regulation now includes a service provider for providing the common information service — this article needs to be amended accordingly. Therefore, all the requirements for a U-space service provider now apply to the CIS provider as regards the conditions for obtaining a certificate. It is also acknowledged that the business plan and assessment of the financial capacity of the providers is a concern. AMC and GM will be provided to support the requirements while ensuring that this does not create administrative burden for the providers while ensuring that they can still demonstrate that they are capable of providing their services thanks to an assured level of financial means. Amendment to Article 20 (resulting text) The text (now Article 18) has been amended to include: — CIS providers; — the reference to the service level agreements when providing their services. In addition, ‘level of safety’ has been removed as it is considered not to be measurable at this moment. Page 27 of 33  Article 22 – Validity of a U-space service provider certificate Main comments — It might be possible that one USSP operates in different countries, where different services are required. If operation means ‘operative service’, then in one country, one operative service might not be required at all. — Suggest reducing the duration periods (6 months and 9 months) as the requirements for being a U-space service provider are significantly fewer than those for an ATM service provider; the time allowed to be operational does not need to be as long as 6 months. — Add a paragraph to reflect that any changes to the technical or operational characteristics detailed within the certificate will invalidate the approval. — SMS for USSP to be considered. — Nothing is mentioned about the retention period of the data in order to safeguard continuity in case of bankruptcy or in the event that a USSP is no longer providing any U-space services. — The pan-European Service provider could be subject to many assessments throughout the year. Request the possibility to use third-party auditors instead, and the ability to re-use generated audit-reports for each request of any competent authority (or the Agency). EASA assessment Because of the amendment to Article 5 (CIS) — the regulation now includes a service provider for providing the common information service — this article needs to be amended accordingly. Therefore, all the requirements for a U-space service provider now apply to the CIS provider as regards the validity of the certificate. The retention period of data of 30 days is already required from U-space service providers in Article 8. U-space service providers are not required to establish a safety management system. In the future, they might need to comply with the SMS in the case they provide ATC-like services. Currently, it is not expected that they fulfil this requirement. In addition, the proposal to invalidate the approval when changes occur is not accepted. It is already covered by paragraph 4 where the competent authority may suspend or revoke the certificate after an audit. Amendment to Article 20 (resulting text) The text (now Article 19) has been amended to include CIS providers. In addition, in paragraph 3, ‘may’ has been replaced by ‘shall’. Page 28 of 33  CHAPTER VI COMPETENT AUTHORITIES Article 23 – Competent authority Main comments — Allowing the Agency to issue certificates for U-space service providers that operate in more than one Member State could expose a potential loophole that could be exploited. — The quoted article from the Basic Regulation is only applicable to ATM/ANS providers (not U- space service providers) and so it is not directly relevant here. If the principle of the BR is being followed, then it will need to be stated in full. EASA assessment The comments are noted. Amendment to Article 23 (resulting text) No amendment has been made to the text (now Article 20). Further explanation can be found in the explanatory note of the Opinion. Article 24 – Tasks of the competent authorities Main comments — There is no corresponding requirement on the service providers to retain all relevant operational and flight plan information for a defined period of time in electronic format that is retrievable on demand by the competent authority. — Clarify that the CA specifies or agrees with the services to be provided and the performance targets to be achieved. — Add a paragraph to include selection of a CIF provider and oversight of the same provider as it is done with the USSPs. — e-Registration shall be added as task of the competent authority. — If a competent authority has the ability to carry out audits and assessments of U-space service providers, then it is permitted on-site (Article 24.1(e)), so no need for on-site visit. — Add to the task list that the designation of U-space airspace shall be done fairly and shall provide fair access in uncontrolled airspace to aircraft without the means for communicating intent and position. — The text is contrary to the principles of risk-based regulation, since not all providers may need to be certified by the authority. Page 29 of 33 EASA assessment — The revised text in Article 8 now includes requirements on the service providers to retain all relevant operational and flight plan information for at least 30 days. — E-registration is indeed an obligation of the competent authority and this is reflected in the revised text. — The visit on-site of the competent authority is necessary as the latter can also carry out audits/assessments remotely (desktop assessment). Amendment to Article 24 (resulting text) The text (now Article 21) has been amended as follows: In paragraph 1: — Addition of a requirement for a registration system for certified U-space service providers to be established and maintained; — Three provisions formerly in Article 6 (USSP platform) have been moved to this article as they are competent authority requirements and are related to the communication protocols and level of access, the exchange through interfaces, and the determination of the type of traffic data to be made available; — The reference to the compliance with national law has been deleted as it is legally not necessary. Article 25 – Exchange of safety information and safety measures Main comments Proposal to require the service provider to automatically collect specific information and routinely provide it to the CA for analysis with respect to safety and performance. EASA assessment It is expected that U-space service providers will support the competent authority in collecting, analysing and disseminating safety information. Amendment to Article 25 (resulting text) No amendment has been made to this article (now Article 22). Further explanation can be found in the explanatory note of the Opinion. Page 30 of 33  CHAPTER VII PRICING OF U-SPACE SERVICES Article 26 – Pricing freedom Main comments Possibilities of financing of the U-space by airspace users. EC assessment In a competitive U-space services market, U-space service providers can set the prices freely. Therefore, this provision is not needed. The fact that there should be no cross-subsidisation between ATM and U-space possible will be covered by SES2+. Amendment to Article 26 (resulting text) This article has been deleted. Article 27 – Fee regulation Main comments There appeared to be some confusion about the need for regulation and the cost for providing ATM information. EC assessment The CIF is a designated monopoly and requires fee regulation. The cost of the CIF relates to the management of the data flow – the data is generated by either ANSPs or USSPs. As a general requirement, all actors that are exchanging safety information through the CIF, need to provide this information for free. Amendment to Article 27 (resulting text) No substantial change. Further explanation can be found in the explanatory note of the Opinion. Page 31 of 33  CHAPTER VIII FINAL PROVISIONS Article 28 – Entry into force and applicability Main comments — Considering the tasks that will have to be done (new certification tasks, new budget, new HR, services implementation), 2 years are a minimum for the applicability of this regulation. — 2 years’ transitional period proposed. — Application of the regulation 1 year after entry into force will be overly burdensome for the Member States. EASA assessment All the comments are noted. Amendment to Article 28 (resulting text) For the moment, no amendment is proposed to this article (now Article 25). The final decision is to be taken after the publication of the Opinion. Appendix 2 Main comments — Information should include authorisation for certified operations, if available. — Common vertical measures in the FPL. — Flight path should include an alternate landing spot if the original end point is not accessible. — Change UAS flight plan to be volume-based consisting of a series of overlapping 3D volumes with start and end times (to support e.g. loiters or search patterns). — Add UAS Performance Class and Com Device Class. Group ID (for swarm operations, see below). — Add min separation distance from subject aircraft as part of flight plan information. — Identification technology (ADS-B, FLARM, Mode S, WiFi, etc). Why is telecommunication not mentioned? — In point (16), specify what other info. EASA assessment All the comments are well noted and all the proposals have been assessed. However, it is considered that the information to be provided by the UAS operator in the flight plan is deemed enough. Page 32 of 33 Amendment to Appendix 2 (resulting text) No amendment has been made to this appendix. Further explanation can be found in the explanatory note of the Opinion. Appendix 3 – Service provider certificate Main comments Add a section to the service provision conditions certificate. This should be in the form of an additional table which details the Member States that the U Space service provider is permitted to operate in. EASA assessment The comments are well noted. Amendment to Appendix 3 (resulting text) No amendment has been made to this appendix. Further explanation can be found in the explanatory note of the Opinion. Page 33 of 33 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, XXX […](2020) XXX draft Annex to EASA Opinion No 01/2020 COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) …/... of XXX on a high-level regulatory framework for the U-space EN EN  COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) …/... of XXX on a high-level regulatory framework for the U-space THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2018 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and amending Regulations (EC) No 2111/2005, (EC) No 1008/2008, (EU) No 996/2010, (EU) No 376/2014 and Directives 2014/30/EU and 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 216/2008 and (EC) No 552/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (1), and in particular Article 57 (a), (b) and (c) thereof, Whereas: (1) ‘U-space’ is the term used in the European Union to refer to the management of traffic for unmanned aircraft. It is meant as a set of services provided in a specific volume of airspace designated by the Member States to manage a large number of UAS operations in a safe an efficient manner. (2) The Drones Amsterdam Declaration of 28 November 2018 (2) urged that priority is given to the implementation of the European drone regulations and called for a timely delivery of the U-space regulatory framework and invited the relevant European Union organisations to join effort to develop an institutional, regulatory and architectural framework for a competitive U-space services market. (3) U-space is a way to respond to the growth of UAS operations in the European airspace and to ensure effective harmonisation across the EU. (4) A U-space regulatory framework should determine the main principles regarding the roles and responsibilities of the organisations involved in the U-space, the necessary services that need to be provided and the requirements for unmanned aircraft in order to operate in the U-space airspace. (5) A U-space regulatory framework is needed to enable more complex and longer- distance operations and to ensure that operations beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) are conducted safely and efficiently. (6) A U-space regulation should support safe, secure, scalable, and environmentally friendly operations of aircraft in the U-space airspace while respecting the privacy of European citizens. 1 OJ L 212, 22.8.2019, p. 1. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2018-drones-amsterdam-declaration.pdf EN 1 EN  (7) A U-space regulation should ensure fair access of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operators to the airspace in a cost-effective manner through a competitive U-space services market. (8) A U-space regulation should minimise the operational constraints, remove the safety risks to manned aviation airspace users, and ensure the protection of third parties or property on the ground even in the event of contingencies and emergencies. (9) The rules and procedures applicable to UAS operations should be proportionate to the nature and risk of the operation or activity and adapted to the operational characteristics of the unmanned aircraft concerned and the characteristics of the area of operations, such as the population density, surface characteristics, and the presence of buildings. (10) It is the competence of the Member States to designate where they intend to establish the U-space airspace over their territory. (11) U-space service providers should provide UAS operators with the necessary U-space services in order to support safe and efficient UAS operations. They should be certified in order to offer a range of U-space services in a free competitive market setting, provided that they comply with the set of applicable requirements. (12) Mandatory U-space services should be available to cover all designated U-space airspace and be provided as a bundle of services. (13) The institutional set-up for the provision of U-space services should avoid the possibility of conflicts of interest and abuse of monopolistic market power. (14) The objectives of the U-space services should be to prevent collision between UAS and between UAS and manned aviation; expedite and maintain an orderly flow of UAS; provide advice and information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of UAS operations; notify the appropriate organisations regarding emergency or abnormal situations pertaining to UAS which may endanger people and goods on the ground or manned aviation; and ensure that environmental, security and privacy requirements are met. (15) This Regulation should apply to any UAS intended to be operated in the ‘open’ category, within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2019/947 (3), with some exceptions based on the risks associated with their operations in the U-space airspace. (16) This Regulation should not apply to model aircraft operations in clubs and associations nor to UAS which are considered to be toys within the meaning of Directive 2009/48/EC (4). (17) This Regulation should define clear responsibilities of all the organisations and natural persons involved in the U-space and describe who is responsible to manage the traffic in the U-space airspace when such airspace is within controlled or uncontrolled areas. The current obligations of air navigation service providers in the framework of the Single European Sky Regulations should be taken due account of. (18) The communications protocol and interfaces between U-space service providers and air navigation service providers should be established, and U-space and air traffic 3 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 219/947 of 24 May 2019 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft (OJ L 152, of 11.6.2019, p. 45). 4 Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys (OJ L 170, 30.6.2009, p. 1). EN 2 EN  management (ATM) systems should be complementary, but at the same time acknowledging that their needs are not the same. (19) All the organisations and natural persons involved in the U-space should share real- time data to provide the U-space and ATM systems with the information required to ensure safe coexistence between manned and unmanned aviation. Where necessary, U- space service providers should interact with the ATM systems to ensure the safe transition of unmanned aircraft between uncontrolled and controlled airspace. (20) This Regulation should ensure that the necessary information is available to all the participants in the U-space. A common information service (CIS) should enable the provision of information to UAS operators, U-space service providers and other organisations and natural persons involved in the U-space. The CIS should be an access point for information on operations and any situations that could have an impact on the airspace. (21) A CIS provider should be established and designated by the Member State to manage the CIS in order to ensure that all the relevant information is available. (22) This Regulation should assist UAS operators in conducting safe flights, supported by the services that they require for the specific nature of their intended operation. A procedure should therefore be defined to ensure that a flight authorisation request is properly made and that the UAS flight authorisation is granted to avoid any conflicting flight intentions. (23) It is not expected that manned aircraft will operate in the U-space; however, there should be a mechanism to ensure that if they need to do so, they can safely be separated from unmanned aircraft. The transmission of information by manned aircraft to the U-space service providers should facilitate meeting this objective. (24) Rules should be established and description should be provided to authenticate the UAS identity and to provide the relevant information to other participants in the U- space during operations and in contingency situations. A network identification service should facilitate this authentication. (25) In order to meet the safety and operational requirements for UAS operations, a geo- awareness service should be mandatory and provide real-time information coming from the CIS. (26) Service description to provide UAS operators with information on other known or observed air traffic should be specified, such as real-time 3D position, latitude, longitude, altitude and time of report. This provision of traffic information should be a mandatory service to be provided by U-space service providers. (27) It is necessary to track position reports of the UAS in order for other services to operate in the U-space airspace. Therefore, a tracking service should enable real-time tracking of the UAS and provide different levels of access to the tracking data to users with different credentials. (28) It is recognised that weather information is necessary to support operational decisions and that such information should support the UAS operator in flight planning and execution with respect to weather using real-time information. (29) A conformance monitoring service should be established to provide real-time alerting of non-conformance with the intended flight path and inform the UAS when leaving or deviating from it. EN 3 EN  (30) A common certification scheme should be established for certifying U-space service providers and CIS providers and for regularly monitoring compliance with the applicable requirements. This system should ensure the provision of safe and high- quality U-space services and increase the freedom of movement while improving the availability of those services. (31) The certificates of service providers should be mutually recognised by all Member States in order to allow them to provide services in a Member State other than the one in which they obtained their certificates, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1139. (32) The tasks of the competent authorities designated by the Member States in accordance with this Regulation should be clearly defined. The coordination between the competent authorities and the local authorities should be ensured. The Agency should be the competent authority for the service providers that would provide services in more than one Member States. (33) With a view to ensuring that the requirements for U-space service providers and the CIS provider are complied with at all times, competent authorities should be granted certain specific investigatory powers. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with the applicable national rules and procedures, while having due regard to a number of specific elements which are meant to ensure a fair balance between all rights and interests at issue in a particular case. (34) UAS operators should be able to rely on a single contract with a U-space service provider of their choice that covers all required U-space services for the operation in U-space airspace. (35) For safety reasons, there can only be one common information service provider per designated U-Space airspace. The price set for this natural monopoly service should therefore be regulated, so that the risk of abuse of dominant position is mitigated and the price is based on the real cost of managing the exchange of data, with a markup reflecting the risks associated with this activity. (36) Member States should ensure that the cost bases according to the common charging scheme for air navigation services (5) do not include determined costs relating to U- space. (37) In order to ensure the proper implementation of this Regulation, Member States and affected stakeholders should have sufficient time to adapt their procedures to the new regulatory framework before this Regulation applies. (38) The European Union Aviation Safety Agency has prepared a draft implementing act and submitted it with Opinion No 01/2020 (6) in accordance with points (b) and (c) of Article 75(2) and with Article 76(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139. (39) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 127 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 5 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 of 6 December 2006 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services (OJ L 341, 7.12.2006, p. 3) 6 https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/opinions EN 4 EN  CHAPTER I PRINCIPLES AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Article 1 Subject matter and scope 1. This Regulation lays down rules and procedures for the provision of U-space services and the establishment of the U-space airspace. 2. This Regulation shall apply to: (a) operators of manned and unmanned aircraft; and (b) U-space service providers that deliver services, in the volumes of airspace designated as U-space airspace by Member States. 3. This Regulation shall also apply to the competent authorities designated as such by the Member States in accordance with Article 20 of this Regulation. 4. This Regulation shall not apply to: (a) operations of unmanned aircraft that are toys within the meaning of Directive 2009/48/EC on the safety of toys; (b) operations of unmanned aircraft conducted in the framework of model aircraft clubs and associations that receive an authorisation in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 (7); and (c) operators of unmanned aircraft in subcategory A1 of the ‘open’ category of operations with an unmanned aircraft that: (i) has a maximum take-off mass (MTOM), including payload, of less than 250 g and a maximum operating speed of less than 19 m/s, in the case of a privately built UAS; or (ii) is marked as class C0 and complies with the requirements of that class, as defined in Part 1 of the Annex to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 (8). Article 2 Objectives The objectives of this Regulation are to: (a) support safe, secure and environmentally friendly operations of aircraft in the U- space airspace while respecting the privacy of European citizens; (b) maintain the current safety levels for manned aviation; (c) create the conditions for an internal market for U-space services; and 7 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 of 24 May 2019 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft (OJ L 152, 11.6.2019, p. 45). 8 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 of 12 March 2019 on unmanned aircraft systems and on third-country operators of unmanned aircraft systems (OJ L 152, 11.6.2019, p. 1). EN 5 EN  (d) ensure fair, affordable and efficient access to the U-space airspace to all airspace users. Article 3 Definitions For the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012 (9), Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945, and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 apply. The following definitions also apply: 1. ‘Airspace risk assessment’ means an evaluation of risk which takes into account the type, complexity and density of traffic, location, altitudes or heights, airspace classification, in order to define the U-space airspace where UAS operations can take place, the minimum list of U-space services and, if necessary, the UAS capabilities and performance requirements. 2. ‘Dynamic reconfiguration of the airspace’ means a temporary limitation of the area within the designated U-space airspace where UAS operations can take place in order to respond to changes in manned traffic demand. 3. ‘Open communication protocols’ means a set of publicly available standards that allow two or more entities of a given system to communicate with each other. Protocols define the rules, syntax, semantics and synchronisation of communication and possible error recovery methods. 4. ‘Principal place of business’ means the head office or registered office of a U-space service provider or CIS provider in the Member State within which the principal financial functions and operational control of the service provider are exercised. 5. ‘U-space airspace’ means a geographical zone, defined in accordance with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947, designated by Member States, where U-space services are required. 6. ‘U-space service provider’ means any legal or natural person providing or intending to provide U-space services as listed and defined in Chapter V of this Regulation. 7. ‘Connectivity’ means the capacity of a system to be interconnected. CHAPTER II ESTABLISHMENT OF THE U-SPACE Article 4 Designation of U-space airspace 1. Member States may designate one or more volumes of airspace as U-space airspace, in controlled or uncontrolled airspace and on a temporary or permanent basis, supported by an airspace risk assessment. 9 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012 of 26 September 2012 laying down the common rules of the air and operational provisions regarding services and procedures in air navigation and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1035/2011 and Regulations (EC) No 1265/2007, (EC) No 1794/2006, (EC) No 730/2006, (EC) No 1033/2006 and (EU) No 255/2010 (OJ L 281, 13.10.2012, p. 1). EN 6 EN  2. Member States shall make the information on the designated U-space airspace publicly available, in accordance with Article 15(3) of Regulation (EU) 2019/947, as well as through their aeronautical information service. 3. Member States shall provide their U-space service provider(s) with means for authenticating identities of unmanned aircraft operators with access to: (a) the national registration database of the Member State where the U-space service provider has its main place of business; and (b) any other national registration database connected through the repository referred to in Article 74 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139. 4. Where the U-space airspace is designated within controlled airspace: (a) air navigation service providers shall remain responsible for the provision of air navigation services to operators of manned aircraft, as well as for the dynamic reconfiguration of the airspace within the designated U-space airspace to ensure that manned and unmanned aircraft remain segregated; (b) U-space service providers shall be responsible for the provision of U-space services to operators of unmanned aircraft. 5. Where the U-space airspace is designated within uncontrolled airspace or when within the airspace there is uncontrolled traffic: (a) air traffic services providers shall remain responsible for the provision of flight information service to the operators of manned aircraft; (b) U-space service providers shall be responsible for the provision of U-space services required to support the safe and efficient movement of aircraft in that U-space airspace. 6. The U-space services referred to in Articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 of this Regulation shall be mandatory in each designated U-space airspace. 7. When Member States decide to establish cross-border U-space airspace, they shall, as a minimum, coordinate on: (a) the designation of the U-space airspace; (b) the U-space service provision; and (c) the common information service. 8. Member States may mandate U-space services in addition to those stipulated in Chapter IV of this Regulation, in the designated U-space airspace, based on the airspace risk assessment referred to in paragraph 1. Article 5 Common information service 1. Member States shall designate a certified common information service (CIS) provider for each designated U-space airspace. 2. The CIS provider shall ensure the exchange of static and dynamic information between U-space service providers and air navigation service providers, necessary for safe operations. 3. The CIS provider shall make the following information available: EN 7 EN  (a) horizontal and vertical limits of the designated U-space airspace; (b) the UAS capabilities and performance requirements set by the competent authorities for a given U-space airspace; (c) a list of different certified U-space service providers effectively offering U- space services in the designated U-space airspace, which shall include information on: (i) identification and contact details of active U-space service providers; (ii) types of services provided; (iii) terms and conditions of services; (iv) certification limitation(s), if any; (d) the applicable operational conditions and airspace constraints; (e) any adjacent designated U-space airspace(s); (f) the connectivity methods, constraints and cybersecurity protection measures, as determined by the Agency; (g) terms and conditions for UAS flight authorisations, including the authorisation deviation thresholds; (h) requirements related to the use of public key infrastructure, identity management, and authentication; and (i) the list of all the publicly known authorities that can be contacted with regard to the common information. 4. When Member States make publicly available the information on the UAS geographical zones, in accordance with Article 15(3) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947, they may use the CIS to disseminate this information. 5. Member States shall ensure that the CIS provider: (a) provides the information in paragraph 3 in accordance with the data quality requirements as laid down in ATM/ANS.OR.A.085(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/373 (10); (b) establishes the necessary procedures for the access to the information and ensures the necessary protection of the information; (c) uses interoperable open communication protocols, as determined by the Agency, to allow fair and sustainable competition between U-space service providers; (d) supplies connectivity interface protocols; (e) establishes a single point of access for exchange of information and coordination procedure between U-space service providers and air traffic services providers for procedural and collaborative interface with air traffic control (ATC). 10 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 of 1 March 2017 laying down common requirements for providers of air traffic management/air navigation services and other air traffic management network functions and their oversight, repealing Regulation (EC) No 482/2008, Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1034/2011, (EU) No 1035/2011 and (EU) 2016/1377 and amending Regulation (EU) No 677/2011 (OJ L 62, 8.3.2017, p 1). EN 8 EN  6. The CIS provider shall not be related or connected in any manner or form to any U- space service provider in the airspace for which it has been designated and shall not provide any U-space services itself in that airspace. CHAPTER III GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRCRAFT OPERATORS AND U-SPACE SERVICE PROVIDERS Article 6 UAS operators 1. When operating in the U-space airspace, UAS operators shall: (a) comply with the applicable requirements established by the competent authority for the U-space airspace being flown; (b) ensure that the aircraft to be operated in the U-space airspace have adequate technical capabilities for utilising the necessary U-space services and for exchanging the required information within the U-space airspace being flown; (c) ensure that during their operations, the U-space services required for the U- space airspace are received and their requirements complied with. 2. UAS operators shall make the necessary service level agreement with a certified U- space service provider of their choice, covering the full set of U-space services necessary to keep all phases of flight safe, in view of the applicable performance objectives and the operational risks of the intended operation. 3. UAS operators shall authorise U-space service providers to get access from the competent authority to the relevant registration information, as defined in Article 14(2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947, and shall be identifiable therein with the registration number. 4. At least 30 minutes before each individual flight, the UAS operator shall make a UAS flight authorisation request to the U-space service provider concerned: (a) in the form as defined in Appendix 1; and (b) complying with the terms and conditions for UAS flight authorisations, including the authorisation deviation thresholds, as defined in Article 5(3)(g). 5. When ready to commence the flight, the UAS operator shall request the activation of the UAS flight authorisation. Upon receiving the confirmation of the activation for the UAS flight authorisation from the U-space service provider, the UAS operator is entitled to start its flight. 6. UAS operators shall not start operations unless a UAS flight authorisation has been granted by the U-space service provider and activated in accordance with paragraph 5. 7. UAS operators shall comply with the terms and conditions set by the UAS flight authorisation as well as to its amendment or the changes which may be introduced by the U-space service provider at any phase of flight. 8. In case UAS operators are not able to comply with the UAS flight authorisation deviation thresholds in accordance with Article 5(3)(g), they shall request a new UAS flight authorisation. EN 9 EN  9. UAS operators shall make any contingency measures and procedures available to the U-space service providers. Article 7 Obligations for operators of manned aircraft operating in U-space airspace 1. Operators of manned aircraft shall not operate in uncontrolled airspace designated as U-space airspace unless the information about the manned aircraft position is made available to U-space service providers at regular intervals and there is sufficient level of performance in terms of accuracy, integrity, legitimacy of source and continuity as determined by the Agency. 2. The above requirement shall also apply when operators of manned aircraft operate as uncontrolled traffic within in the U-space airspace designated in controlled airspace. Article 8 U-space service providers 1. U-space service providers shall be responsible for providing to UAS operators the services required to ensure the safe and efficient movement of aircraft during all phases of operations in the designated U-space airspace. 2. U-space service providers shall retain data used for the service for a period of at least 30 days following its use. If the data is used for accident and incident investigations, it shall be retained for a longer period until it is evident that it will no longer be required. 3. U-space service providers shall handle air traffic data without discrimination, restriction or interference, independently of its sender or receiver, content, application or service, or terminal equipment and shall act in accordance with the applicable requirements in the U-space airspace established in accordance with this Regulation. 4. U-space service providers shall ensure that the information contained in Article 10(2) is made available to: (a) the general public as regards information that is deemed public in accordance with applicable EU and national rules; (b) other U-space service providers in other to ensure safety of operations in the U- space airspace; (c) the air traffic services providers concerned; and (d) their competent authorities. 5. U-space service providers shall: (a) exchange information, including air traffic information of the unmanned aircraft, between themselves; (b) adhere to an open communication protocol acceptable to the Agency, and use the latest information available from the CIS in accordance with Article 5(3); (c) provide the information exchanged in accordance with the necessary data quality requirements; (d) ensure the access to and the necessary protection of the information exchanged; EN 10 EN  (e) request and establish arrangements with the air traffic services providers to ensure adequate coordination of activities, as well as exchange of relevant data and information; and (f) provide any information as an input to the CIS for free. 6. U-space service providers shall ensure the continuity of the services during operations in the designated U-space airspace(s) where they provide services. 7. When U-space service providers receive the UAS flight authorisation request, they shall: (a) check if the UAS flight authorisation request form is complete and correct; (b) accept or reject it; and (c) notify the UAS operator accordingly. 8. The U-space service providers shall ensure that a UAS flight authorisation is provided based on complete, current and accurate information. 9. When the conditions do not permit issuing a UAS flight authorisation in accordance with the UAS operator’s request, U-space services providers shall propose an alternative UAS flight authorisation. 10. U-space service providers shall ensure the exchange of information relevant for the safe operations with air navigation service providers through the CIS. 11. Upon receiving the request for a UAS flight authorisation activation, the U-space service providers shall, without unjustified delay, confirm the activation of the UAS flight authorisation. 12. When providing a UAS flight authorisation service, U-space service providers shall establish proper arrangements to resolve conflicting authorisation requests received by different U-space services providers. 13. When providing flight authorisation to UAS operators, U-space service providers shall take into account the information received in accordance with Article 8 and the priority rules in accordance with paragraph 6 of Article 13. 14. U-space service providers shall report to the competent authority: (a) the starting of operations after receiving the certificate; and (b) the ceasing and subsequent restarting of operations, if applicable. Article 9 Occurrence reporting 1. U-space service providers shall establish mandatory and voluntary reporting systems in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the reporting, analysis and follow-up of occurrences in civil aviation (11). 11 Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the reporting, analysis and follow-up of occurrences in civil aviation, amending Regulation (EU) No 996/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Directive 2003/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1321/2007 and (EC) No 1330/2007 (OJ L 122, 24.4.2014, p. 18). EN 11 EN  2. Such reports shall be made in a form and manner acceptable to the competent authority. CHAPTER IV U-SPACE SERVICES Article 10 Network identification service 1. The network identification service shall continuously process the remote identification of the UAS throughout the whole duration of the flight and provide it to authorised users in an aggregated manner. 2. This service shall distribute messages with the following content: (a) the UAS operator registration number; (b) the unique physical serial number of the add-on compliant with standard ANSI/CTA-2063; (c) the geographical position of the unmanned aircraft and its height above the surface or take-off point; (d) the route course measured clockwise from true north and the ground speed of the UA; (e) the geographical position of the remote pilot or, if not available, the take-off point; (f) the emergency status of the UAS; and (g) the time at which the messages were generated. 3. The identification service shall ensure the levels of access to authorised users based on the credentials of the user. The levels of access established by the competent authority in accordance with Article 21(1)(b) shall be complied with by the U-space service providers based on the credentials of the user. 4. The identification service shall correlate identification and UAS traffic information. 5. U-space service providers shall be able to receive and exchange broadcast and network e-identification information. Article 11 Geo-awareness service 1. The geo-awareness service shall provide: (a) information related to the operational conditions for UAS geographical zones established in accordance with Article 15 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947; and (b) the relevant data from the CIS, to support the UAS geo-awareness system. EN 12 EN  2. The geometry of all airspace with special access rules for UAS shall be provided to other relevant U-space service providers. 3. Any valid times or special airspace rules shall be provided with the airspace geometries. 4. The Member State shall specify which authorities have the privilege to update or add to the geo-awareness information. 5. The geo-awareness information shall be updated in a timely manner to allow contingencies and emergencies to be addressed, and shall include its time of update or a version number and/or a valid time. Article 12 Flight authorisation service 1. The flight authorisation service shall provide the authorisation to the unmanned aircraft operator to enter the U-space airspace under the terms and conditions specified by the U-space service provider in the flight authorisation. 2. When the U-space airspace is within controlled airspace, the U-space service providers and the relevant air traffic services units shall establish a procedure to coordinate the flight authorisation requests. 3. The procedure established in paragraph 2 shall ensure that the flight authorisation service is provided in a timely manner. 4. This service shall check the request for flight authorisations against airspace restrictions and limitations which are maintained and updated in accordance with Article 5 and ensure strategic de-confliction from other traffic according to the priority rules as established in paragraph 6. 5. Each flight authorisation shall have a unique authorisation number associated with it. This number shall also enable the identification of the U-space service provider issuing the authorisation. 6. When a flight authorisation is granted, the following priority rules shall be respected in accordance with the order specified below: (a) aircraft in distress with passengers shall have priority over any other air traffic; (b) when manned and unmanned aircraft are conducting special operations, within the meaning of Article 4 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012 (12), manned aircraft shall have priority over unmanned aircraft; (c) when unmanned aircraft conduct special operations, within the meaning of Article 4 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012, they shall have priority over any other air traffic; (d) aircraft carrying passengers shall have priority over aircraft without passengers on board; (e) manned aircraft shall have priority over unmanned aircraft; 12 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012 of 26 September 2012 laying down the common rules of the air and operational provisions regarding services and procedures in air navigation and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1035/2011 and Regulations (EC) No 1265/2007, (EC) No 1794/2006, (EC) No 730/2006, (EC) No 1033/2006 and (EU) No 255/2010 (OJ L 281, 13.10.2012, p. 1). EN 13 EN  (f) BVLOS operations shall have priority over visual line of sight (VLOS) operations; (g) when two flight authorisation requests have the same priority, they shall be processed on a first come first served basis. Article 13 Traffic information service 1. The traffic information service shall provide the UAS operator with information on other known or observed air traffic which may be in proximity to the position or intended route of the UAS flight to alert and to help the UAS operator to avoid a collision. 2. The traffic information service shall include real-time 3D position of the known air traffic which may include manned and unmanned aircraft. 3. The information about the position of other known air traffic shall include latitude and longitude, altitude, and time of report. When known, the information shall also include speed, heading or direction and emergency status. 4. The traffic information shall be updated at a frequency that the competent authority has determined to be adequate for safety in the given U-space airspace. 5. Upon receiving the traffic information services from the U-space service provider, UAS operators shall take the relevant action to avoid any collision hazard. Article 14 Tracking service 1. The tracking service shall comprise UAS telemetry messages with actual information about the UAS flight sent from the unmanned aircraft, flight plans, and identification information from UAS operators and other U-space service providers. 2. This service shall associate consecutive surveillance observations of the same UAS flight with tracks, including the current position, heading and speed. 3. This service shall comprise ground-based surveillance information where available. 4. A tracking report shall contain: (a) the identities of the unmanned aircraft and operator, if available; (b) the identity of the mission plan being executed (if any and if available), or an automatically generated identifier for the flight; (c) the identifier of the system(s) that has (have) calculated the track; (d) the time at which the track position has been calculated; (e) the 3D position of the unmanned aircraft at the time calculated, expressed as latitude and longitude, and altitude; (f) the route course measured clockwise from true north and the ground speed of the unmanned aircraft at the time calculated, expressed in knots; and (g) the estimated uncertainties regarding or confidence in the calculated position and the route course measured clockwise from true north and the ground speed of the unmanned aircraft. EN 14 EN  5. This service shall produce track updates at a rate that the competent authority has determined appropriate for the U-space airspaces that are in its area of competence. 6. The tracking service shall use an approved method or algorithm for identifying and fusing tracks collected from different sources representing the same unmanned aircraft. 7. The tracking service shall provide track reports of uncorrelated tracks. 8. The tracking service shall keep record of all available surveillance and data sources, as well as their coverage volumes. 9. The tracking service shall generate alerts of outages or of degradation of service. 10. Logs of all tracks and alerts shall be retained for a period of not less than 90 days. If the logs are used for accident and incident investigations, they shall be retained for a longer period until it is evident that they will no longer be required. Article 15 Weather information service 1. When weather information service is provided, it shall: (a) collect the minimum weather data to maintain safety, supporting operational decisions of other critical services; (b) provide the UAS operator with forecast and actual weather information either before or during the flight; and (c) collect and make available weather information provided by trusted sources. 2. The weather information shall include, as a minimum: (a) wind direction measured clockwise through the true north and speed in metres per second, including gusts; (b) the height of the lowest broken or overcast layer in hundreds of feet above ground level; (c) visibility in metres and kilometres; (d) temperature and dew point; and (e) indicators of convective activity and precipitation. 3. The weather information shall be sufficiently reliable to support operational decision-making. 4. The weather information shall include the location and time of the observation, or the valid times and locations of the forecast. Article 16 Conformance monitoring service 1. The conformance monitoring service shall monitor whether the UAS operators comply with the requirements in Article 6(1) and the information provided in the UAS flight authorisation request form as submitted and as modified by the flight authorisation service. EN 15 EN  2. The conformance monitoring service shall alert the UAS operator when the flight authorisation deviation thresholds are to be violated and when the requirements in Article 6(1) are not complied with. 3. Where the service detects a deviation from the requirements to an extent depending on the complexity and density of the air traffic that can create a hazard to other aircraft operators, the conformance monitoring service shall alert the other aircraft operators operating in the vicinity of the UAS operators, other U-space service providers and relevant authorities in such time limits that the safety objectives set out in Article 2 of this Regulation are met. CHAPTER V CIS PROVIDERS AND U-SPACE SERVICE PROVIDERS CERTIFICATION Article 17 Application for a CIS provider and U-space service provider certificate 1. CIS providers and U-space service providers are required to hold a certificate issued by the competent authority located in the Member State of their principal place of business or by the Agency, as applicable. 2. The certificate shall be issued in accordance with Appendix 2 for U-space service providers and Appendix 3 for CIS providers. 3. The certificate shall indicate the rights and privileges of its holder to provide certain services. 4. An application for a CIS provider or U-space service provider certificate or for an amendment to an existing certificate shall be made in a form and manner established by the competent authority located in the Member State of its principal place of business or by the Agency, as applicable. 5. In order to obtain the certificate, CIS providers and U-space service providers shall comply with the requirements set out in this Regulation. Article 18 Conditions for obtaining a certificate A CIS provider and a U-space service provider shall be granted a certificate by the competent authority of its principal place of business or by the Agency, as applicable, provided that it demonstrates that it: 1. is able to provide its services in a safe, efficient, continuous and sustainable manner, consistent with the level of service. To this end, it shall maintain adequate technical and operational capacity and expertise; 2. uses systems and equipment that guarantee the quality, accuracy and integrity of the U-space services in accordance with this Regulation; 3. has the appropriate net capital commensurate with the costs and risks associated with the provision of U-space services; EN 16 EN  4. has a management system, established in accordance with Subpart B of Annex III to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 (13) and complying with all the requirements of such Regulation; 5. has established an information security management system; 6. carries out a safety assessment to demonstrate compliance with the objectives set for the service provided in view of the intended operations in that U-space airspace; to that end, it shall provide assurance, with sufficient confidence, via a complete, documented and valid argument that its contribution to the objectives of Article 2 can be met; 7. has a robust business plan indicating that it can meet its actual obligations to provide its services in a continuous manner for a period of at least 12 months from the start of operations; 8. has the required liability and insurance cover appropriate to the risk of the service(s) provided; and 9. has an emergency management plan to assist the aircraft operator experiencing an emergency and a communication plan to inform those concerned. Article 19 Validity of the certificate 1. A CIS provider and a U-space service provider certificate shall remain valid as long as the CIS provider and the U-space service provider comply with the requirements set out in this Regulation. 2. A CIS provider and a U-space service provider certificate shall not remain valid if the provider has: (a) not started operations within 6 months after the certificate has been issued; or (b) ceased operations for more than 9 consecutive months. 3. The competent authority or the Agency, as applicable, shall assess the operational or financial performance of a CIS provider or a U-space service provider under its jurisdiction. 4. The competent authority or the Agency, as applicable, may, based on the outcome of the assessment in (3) impose particular conditions to the certificate holder, suspend or revoke the certificate. CHAPTER VI COMPETENT AUTHORITIES 13 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 of 1 March 2017 laying down common requirements for providers of air traffic management/air navigation services and other air traffic management network functions and their oversight, repealing Regulation (EC) No 482/2008, Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1034/2011, (EU) No 1035/2011 and (EU) 2016/1377 and amending Regulation (EU) No 677/2011 (OJ L 62, 8.3.2017, p. 1). EN 17 EN  Article 20 Competent authority 1. Member States shall designate one or more competent authorities to implement this Regulation. 2. The competent authority shall: (a) have a suitable organisational structure, appropriately documented procedures, and adequate resources; and (b) employ or have access to personnel with sufficient knowledge, professional integrity, as well as experience and training to perform their allocated tasks. 3. Competent authorities shall ensure that their personnel do not perform activities related to this Regulation when there is evidence that this could result, directly or indirectly, in a conflict of interest. 4. The Agency shall act as the competent authority for U-space service providers intending to provide or providing U-space services in more than one Member State and for U-space service providers established outside the EU and intending to provide or providing services within its territory, in accordance with Article 80(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139. Article 21 Tasks of the competent authorities 1. The designated competent authorities shall: (a) establish, maintain and make publicly available a registration system for certified U-space service providers; (b) determine what traffic data U-space service providers and air navigation service providers shall make available to authorised legal and natural persons, including the required frequency and the quality level; (c) determine the secure open communication protocol and the level of access to the information to the different users of the CIS; (d) ensure that data exchange is made through the appropriate interfaces; (e) define the manner for legal and natural persons to apply for a U-space service provider certificate in accordance with Chapter V; (f) establish a mechanism to coordinate with local authorities the designation of U-space airspace, the establishment of airspace restrictions for unmanned aircraft and the determination of the U-space services to be provided in the designated U-space airspace; (g) establish a certification and continuous risk-based oversight programme, including the monitoring of the operational and financial performance, which is commensurate with the risk associated with the services being provided by the U-space service providers under their oversight responsibility; (h) require the U-space service providers to make available all necessary information to ensure that the provision of U-space services contribute to safe, secure and environmental friendly operations of aircraft; (i) establish an information security management system; EN 18 EN  (j) be allowed to enter any premises of the U-space service providers under their oversight; and (k) carry out audits, assessments, investigations and inspections of those U-space service providers as established in the oversight programme. 2. The competent authorities and the Agency shall take or initiate any appropriate enforcement measure necessary to ensure that the U-space service providers under their oversight, comply and continue to comply with the requirements of this Regulation. Article 22 Exchange of safety information and safety measures 1. The competent authorities and the Agency shall cooperate on safety matters, and establish procedures for an efficient exchange of safety information. 2. The competent authorities and the Agency shall collect, analyse and disseminate safety information concerning operations in the U-space airspace in the territory to which the Treaties apply, in accordance with this Regulation. 3. Upon receiving safety information, the competent authorities or the Agency, as applicable, shall take appropriate measures to address any arising or latent safety issues in accordance with the respective terms of mandate and competencies. 4. Such measures shall immediately be notified to all persons or organisations that need to comply with such measures under Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 and its implementing rules. The competent authorities shall also notify those measures to the Agency. CHAPTER VII PRICING OF CIS Article 23 Pricing of common information service 1. The price for the common information service shall be set by the competent authority concerned. 2. The price referred to in paragraph 1 shall be cost-based and allow an appropriate risk-return trade-off. CHAPTER VIII FINAL PROVISIONS Article 24 Amendments to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 1. Annex I (Part-Definitions) is amended as follows: The following definitions are added: EN 19 EN  (xx) ‘U-space airspace’ means a geographical zone, defined in accordance with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947, designated by Member States, where U-space services are required. (xx) ‘U-space service provider’ means any organisation providing or intending to provide U-space services as listed and defined in Chapter V of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/xxx. 2. Annex IV (Part-ATS) is amended as follows: In Section 1 of Subpart A, the following point ATS.OR.127 is added: “ATS.OR.127 Coordination between U-space service providers and air traffic services providers (a) When U-space airspace is established in the area of responsibility of an air traffic services provider, the latter shall, upon request in accordance with Article 8(4)(e) of Regulation (EU) …/… (U-space Regulation), establish arrangements with the U- space service providers which intend to provide services in that U-space airspace. (b) The arrangements in (a) shall ensure adequate coordination of activities, as well as the dynamic reconfiguration of the airspace within the designated U-space airspace in accordance with Article 4(3)(a) and exchange of relevant data and information.” Article 25 Entry into force and applicability 1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. 2. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. It shall apply one year following the day it enters into force. Done at Brussels, For the Commission The President […] EN 20 EN European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 High-level regulatory framework for the U-space RMT.0230 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The objective of this Opinion is to create and harmonise the necessary conditions for manned and unmanned aircraft to operate safely in the U-space airspace, to prevent collisions between aircraft and to mitigate the air and ground risks. Therefore, the U-space regulatory framework, supported by clear and simple rules, should permit safe aircraft operations in all areas and for all types of unmanned operations. This Opinion proposes an effective and enforceable regulatory framework to support and enable operational, technical and business developments, and provide fair access to all airspace users, so that the market can drive the delivery of the U-space services to cater for airspace users’ needs. This Opinion is, therefore, a first regulatory step to allow immediate implementation of the U-space after the entry into force of the Regulation and to let the unmanned aircraft systems and U-space technologies evolve. Action area: Unmanned aircraft systems Affected rules: n/a Affected stakeholders: Member States, unmanned aircraft system operators, manned aviation community, U-space service providers, air navigation services providers, all airspace users Driver: Safety Rulemaking group: No — instead, a working group has been involved Impact assessment: Full Rulemaking Procedure: Accelerated 4.6.2018 8.10.2019 13.3.2020 2020/Q4 TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 1 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 Table of contents Table of contents 1. About this Opinion ............................................................................................................... 3 1.1. How this Opinion was developed ..................................................................................................... 3 1.2. The next steps ................................................................................................................................... 4 2. In summary — why and what................................................................................................ 5 2.1. Why we need a regulatory framework for the U-space ................................................................... 5 2.2. What we want to achieve — objectives ........................................................................................... 6 2.3. Rule structure ................................................................................................................................... 7 2.4. Overview of the proposals ................................................................................................................ 8 2.5. What are the stakeholders’ views — outcome of the consultation ............................................... 22 2.6. What are the expected benefits and drawbacks of the proposals ................................................. 24 3. Impact assessment (IA) ....................................................................................................... 26 3.1. General context .............................................................................................................................. 26 3.1.1. Current regulatory situation and developments ........................................................................ 26 3.1.2. EU policies concerned ................................................................................................................. 26 3.1.3. Current UAS operations .............................................................................................................. 27 3.1.4. International context .................................................................................................................. 27 3.2. What is the issue? ........................................................................................................................... 28 3.2.1. Safety risk assessment ................................................................................................................ 29 3.2.2. Who is affected? ......................................................................................................................... 30 3.2.3. How could the issue/problem evolve .......................................................................................... 31 3.3. What we want to achieve — objectives ......................................................................................... 31 3.4. How it could be achieved — options .............................................................................................. 32 3.4.1. Baseline Option — Option 0 ‘No policy change at EU level. U-space implementation is done at national level’............................................................................................................................................... 32 3.4.2. Option 1 ‘Develop a harmonised framework for the establishment of U-space across Europe’- 32 3.5. What are the impacts ..................................................................................................................... 32 3.5.1. Methodology applied ................................................................................................................. 32 3.5.2. Assumptions made for the assessment of the impact ................................................................ 33 3.5.3. Safety impact .............................................................................................................................. 33 3.5.4. Economic impact ........................................................................................................................ 37 3.5.5. Environmental impact and impact on privacy ............................................................................ 39 3.5.6. Security impact ........................................................................................................................... 40 3.5.7. Social impact .............................................................................................................................. 41 3.5.8. Impact on General Aviation ........................................................................................................ 42 3.6. Conclusion....................................................................................................................................... 44 3.6.1. Comparison of options................................................................................................................ 44 3.7. Monitoring and evaluation ............................................................................................................. 44 4. Proposed actions to support implementation ...................................................................... 46 5. References ......................................................................................................................... 47 5.1. Affected regulations ....................................................................................................................... 47 5.2. Related regulations ......................................................................................................................... 47 5.3. Related decisions ............................................................................................................................ 47 5.4. Other reference documents ........................................................................................................... 47 6. Related documents ............................................................................................................. 48 TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 2 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 1. About this Opinion 1. About this Opinion 1.1. How this Opinion was developed The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) developed this Opinion in line with Regulation (EU) 2018/11391 (‘Basic Regulation’) and the Rulemaking Procedure2. This rulemaking activity is included in the European Plan for Aviation Safety (EPAS) 2020-2024 under rulemaking task (RMT).0230. The scope and timescales of the task were defined in the related ToR3. The draft text of this Opinion has been developed by EASA in discussions with the responsible services of the European Commission4 based on the input of a working group composed of representatives of Member States as well as experts from EUROCONTROL and the SESAR Joint Undertaking. The working group held eight meetings, from January 2019 till September 2019. All interested parties were consulted through the Advisory Bodies (ABs) in accordance with Article 16 ‘Special rulemaking procedure: accelerated procedure’ of MB Decision No 18-2015. Before the AB consultation, EASA organised, in July 2019, a focused consultation to receive feedback on its very first draft regulation. More than 1 000 comments were received from the drone and U-space stakeholders as well as from the authorities and the aviation industry. Furthermore, a dedicated workshop was held on 11 October 2019 with the drone community to discuss the draft regulation. More than 2 500 comments were received on the draft Opinion from interested parties, including industry, national aviation authorities (NAAs), local authorities and aviation associations. EASA reviewed the comments received during the AB consultation. The main comments received and EASA’s responses to them are presented in the Appendix to this Opinion. The final text of this Opinion and the draft regulation have been developed by EASA in discussions with the responsible services of the European Commission based on the input received from the AB consultation and the workshop of 11 October 2019. The draft rule text proposed by EASA is published on the EASA website5. The major milestones of this rulemaking activity are presented on the title page. 1 Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2018 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and amending Regulations (EC) No 2111/2005, (EC) No 1008/2008, (EU) No 996/2010, (EU) No 376/2014 and Directives 2014/30/EU and 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 552/2004 and (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (OJ L 212, 22.8.2018, p. 1) (https://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1535612134845&uri=CELEX:32018R1139). 2 EASA is bound to follow a structured rulemaking process as required by Article 115(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139. Such a process has been adopted by the EASA Management Board (MB) and is referred to as the ‘Rulemaking Procedure’. See MB Decision No 18-2015 of 15 December 2015 replacing Decision 01/2012 concerning the procedure to be applied by EASA for the issuing of opinions, certification specifications and guidance material (http://www.easa.europa.eu/the- agency/management-board/decisions/easa-mb-decision-18-2015-rulemaking-procedure). 3 https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/ToR%20RMT.0230%20%E2%80%93%20Issue%202.pdf 4 In accordance with the Basic Regulation, EASA provides its Opinion to the European Commission. The reason for the in- depth discussions with the responsible services of the European Commission is that the proposed Regulation on U-space also contains the market and financial provisions that are typically outside the scope of EASA’s mandate. 5 http://easa.europa.eu/document-library/opinions TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 3 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 1. About this Opinion 1.2. The next steps This Opinion contains a draft regulation and is submitted to the European Commission, which will use it as a technical basis in order to prepare an EU regulation. For information, EASA published the draft text for the related EASA decision that contains acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and guidance material (GM). The final decision that issues the AMC & GM will be published by EASA once the European Commission has adopted the regulation and once the necessary consultation with the affected stakeholders has been performed. TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 4 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 2. In summary — why and what 2. In summary — why and what 2.1. Why we need a regulatory framework for the U-space Unmanned aircraft — commonly called drones — are a promising source for delivering innovative services. Yet, these emerging technologies also present a challenge. The rising number of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operations in the European airspace poses safety, security and airspace integration issues. To ensure on the one hand, safe UAS traffic management and on the other hand, that unmanned aircraft can safely operate within the existing air traffic environment in a harmonised manner across the European airspace, there is a need to develop a robust regulatory framework. In perspective of the foreseen increase of manned air traffic in the years to come and the proliferation of unmanned aircraft operations, with both types of aircraft sometimes sharing the same airspace, hazard to air traffic, persons and property will also increase if not addressed through appropriate mitigating measures. The establishment of the U-space airspace and the provisions for U-space services are considered essential to respond to such growth of UAS operations — especially today in low-level airspace — which is expected to outnumber the volume of traffic currently seen with manned aircraft. Because today’s air traffic management (ATM) system is already reaching its limits and as the expected UAS traffic and flying characteristics of the unmanned aircraft (the pilot is not on board and the level of automation is higher) are different from those of manned aircraft, ATM cannot be seen as the only appropriate means to safely and efficiently manage the upcoming UAS traffic. Consequently, there is a need to complement the existing European Regulations for UAS operations in the ‘open’ and ‘specific’ categories with a European regulatory framework that enables harmonised implementation of U-space and is adapted to the task of ensuring safe management of UAS traffic. Indeed, U-space is the enabler to manage more complex and longer-distance operations, and to ensure that operations such as beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operations or urban air mobility (UAM) are supported with services that enhance safety, security, privacy and efficiency of these operations. Given the increase of UAS traffic and UAS traffic complexity, the need for U-space airspace and U-space services is expected to increase and may cover the entire airspace in which BVLOS and operations of UAS with higher level of autonomy are conducted. The U-space airspace and U-space services are also needed to ensure fair access of UAS operators to the airspace in a cost-effective manner through a competitive U-space services market. The European approach will facilitate this competitive model by providing the basis for common data exchange protocols, establishing a cooperative environment where all the necessary information is available and transmitted to those who need it, in order to ensure seamless exchange of aircraft operators’ positions and UAS operators’ intent, operational constraints and other data critical for safety and security purposes. The absence of a European-wide approach could result in non-harmonised implementation of U-space or in application of non-interoperable national rules, having a potential safety impact on the integration of UAS operations into the airspace due to the use of different operational procedures and technical solutions. Moreover, a European regulatory approach for U-space can provide the safety risk mitigation means through a common approach to effective implementation of UAS traffic management by having the same rules and procedures for all UAS operators across the EU. The TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 5 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 2. In summary — why and what regulatory framework proposed in this Opinion contains the first step of U-space regulation, but EASA will set up a process to enhance the regulation, as more U-space services will be developed, mature and gradually be rolled out. These future U-space services will need to be defined as the wider drone industry matures to fulfil the needs of new and future types of operations. 2.2. What we want to achieve — objectives The main objective of this proposal is to develop the first building block of a European regulatory framework that can ensure that unmanned aircraft operations operate in a safe, secure, manageable, connected environment while keeping all aircraft safe in the U-space airspace. This building block will complement the existing ATM environment of ‘traditional’ manned aviation and will evolve along with the growing density and complexity of the air traffic. This proposal intends to create the conditions for manned and unmanned aircraft to operate safely in the airspace (controlled and uncontrolled airspace) where U-space services are provided. To achieve this, there is a need to have an appropriate common information service (CIS)6 that will enable the exchange of essential information between the U-space service providers (USSPs), the UAS operators, the air navigation service providers (ANSPs) and all other participants in the U-space airspace. The ultimate objective of U-space in its final stage7 is to prevent collisions between manned and unmanned aircraft and mitigate the air and ground risks. Today’s proposal contributes to this objective as it contains all the necessary building blocks and mitigation layers to safely manage the forecasted UAS operations in the upcoming years. Another key objective of this proposal is to create a competitive U-space services market that leads to safe and sustainable operations in the U-space airspace. Only a clear EU regulatory framework can establish a competitive European U-space services market to attract the necessary business investments in both the UAS and U-space services markets. An effective and enforceable regulatory framework should support and enable operational, technical and business developments, and provide fair access to all airspace users, so that the market can drive the delivery of the U-space services to cater for UAS operators’ needs. This proposal also intends to support a level of environmental protection, security and privacy that is acceptable to the public. In particular, privacy is considered a major threat for the development of the UAS market as UAS operations are and can be conducted closer to the ground and therefore closer to people. At the same time, it should provide enough flexibility for the drone industry to evolve, innovate and mature as many of the technical solutions and U-space services are still under development and demonstration phases. Therefore, the U-space regulation should be performance- and risk-based. It should ensure interoperability and consistency with the existing Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 6 Which is the single point of truth and therefore it can only be one per U-space airspace implementation. 7 The final stage of U-space is when all the necessary U-space services are defined, developed, demonstrated, validated and available/deployed. This is not the case today as not all the necessary U-space services are mature. TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 6 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 2. In summary — why and what 2019/9478 and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/9459 and provide the necessary flexibility to allow for local implementation at the level of the Member State or even at regional/local level that is suitable for and adapted to the local UAS traffic and traffic complexity. Still, the implementation should be sufficiently harmonised across the EU. 2.3. Rule structure Chapter I — Principles and general requirements Article 1 Subject matter and scope Article 2 Objectives Article 3 Definitions Chapter II — Establishment of the U-space Article 4 Designation of U-space airspace Article 5 Common information service Chapter III — General requirements for aircraft operators and U-space service providers Article 6 UAS operators Article 7 Obligation for operators of manned aircraft operating in U-space airspace Article 8 U-space service providers Article 9 Occurrence reporting Chapter IV — U-space services Article 10 Network identification service Article 11 Geo-awareness service Article 12 Flight authorisation service Article 13 Traffic information service Article 14 Tracking service Article 15 Weather information service Article 16 Conformance monitoring service Chapter V — CIS providers and U-space service providers certification Article 17 Application for a CIS provider and U-space service provider certificate Article 18 Conditions for obtaining a certificate Article 19 Validity of the certificate Chapter VI — Competent authorities Article 20 Competent authority Article 21 Tasks of the competent authorities Article 22 Exchange of safety information and safety measures Chapter VII — Pricing of CIS Article 23 Pricing of common information service Chapter VIII — Final provisions Article 24 Amendments to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 Article 25 Entry into force and applicability 8 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 of 24 May 2019 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft (OJ L 152, 11.6.2019, p. 45) (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?qid=1582472736888&uri=CELEX:32019R0947). 9 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 of 12 March 2019 on unmanned aircraft systems and on third-country operators of unmanned aircraft systems (OJ L 152, 11.6.2019, p. 1) (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?qid=1582472840147&uri=CELEX:32019R0945). TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 7 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 2. In summary — why and what 2.4. Overview of the proposals LEGAL BASIS — Article 43(1)(a) of the Basic Regulation contains the mandate for the European Commission to adopt implementing acts with specific rules and procedures for the provision of air traffic management (ATM)/air navigation services (ANS) in the Single European Sky airspace and the design, production, maintenance and operation of systems and constituents used in the provision of those ATM/ANS in compliance with the essential requirements. — Article 44(1)(a) of the Basic Regulation contains the mandate for the European Commission to adopt implementing acts containing detailed provisions on the operating rules for the use of airspace, aircraft equipment and ATM/ANS systems and ATM/ANS constituents required for the use of airspace. — In addition, in accordance with Article 55 of the Basic Regulation, the design, production, maintenance and operation of aircraft referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 2(1), where it concerns unmanned aircraft, and their engines, propellers, parts, non-installed equipment and equipment to control them remotely, as well as the personnel, including remote pilots, and organisations involved in those activities, shall comply with the essential requirements set out in Annex IX to said Regulation. — In Annex IX, points 2.2 and 2.4.4 contain essential requirements, which specifically apply also to organisations involved in unmanned aircraft operations and related services. — CIS providers and USSPs are organisations involved in unmanned aircraft operations that will provide services necessary for the intended operations. — In this context, the European Commission has been empowered to adopt implementing acts laying down detailed provisions concerning, among others: (a) the specific rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft as well as for the personnel, including remote pilots, and organisations involved in those operations; (b) the rules and procedures for issuing, maintaining, amending, limiting, suspending, or revoking the certificates, or for making declarations, for the operation of unmanned aircraft as well as for personnel, including remote pilots, and organisations involved in those activities, and for the situations in which such certificates or declarations are to be required; the rules and procedures for issuing those certificates and for making those declarations may be based on, or consist of, the detailed requirements referred to in Sections I, II and III; and (c) the privileges and responsibilities of the holders of certificates and of natural and legal persons making declarations. — Therefore, the legal basis for this Opinion is Articles 43(1)(a), 44(1)(a) and 57, of the Basic Regulation, in particular points (a), (b) and (c) referred to above, and Article 76(1) containing the mandate for EASA to submit proposals for implementing acts in the form of opinions. TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 8 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 2. In summary — why and what INTRODUCTION This Opinion has been developed in a very short time frame (15 months). Taking into account the importance of the timely delivery of a first set of implementing rules on U-space, this Opinion lays down the first building block for the establishment of the U-space. This first building block will be complemented and enhanced as U-space services mature and in-service experience is gained through the implementation of this first set of requirements. This Opinion has been developed applying the following leading principles: — a risk-based approach; — fair and equal access to the airspace and the services to be provided in that airspace; — fostering the development of the UAS market in the EU through ensuring a level playing field and a competitive market; — accommodating initial BVLOS UAS operations and initial UAS operations in an urban environment or UAM in the short term; — recognising and respecting the existence of today’s airspace structures and rules-of-the-air principles which are applicable to manned aircraft operators; and — fostering further development of U-space’s implementation architectures and services, thus enabling more complex UAS operations in the future (e.g. advanced UAM operations, more complex airspace structure and management). Therefore, this Opinion proposes a first set of what are considered by EASA as the minimum necessary rules, which are to be complemented later with further provisions enabling a more mature state of airspace integration. The proposed high-level regulatory framework intends to allow immediate implementation of the U-space after the entry into force of the Regulation. It provides the means to mitigate the risk of collisions by requiring adapted services and sharing essential traffic information. Until further development of detect and avoid (DAA) or sense and avoid (SAA) systems, the only way to ensure safe operations in the U-space airspace, in particular when UAS conduct BVLOS operations, is to ensure that U-space participants are cooperative, i.e. they share real-time information regarding their actual position in the U-space airspace. When this cannot be achieved, then the only possibility to ensure safe operations is segregation. It is acknowledged that full integration of the airspace used by manned and unmanned aircraft should be aimed at in the future as a viable solution to accommodate ATM as a whole, but today the technologies and the maturity of the U-space services and DAA systems do not allow for such a level of integration. This is why this proposal focuses on how to mitigate the air and ground risks by using today’s airspace management techniques such as dynamic segregation and use of restricted and dangerous areas, as they are necessary for safety. Very important is to note that the regulation proposed with EASA’s Opinion respects today’s roles and responsibilities as foreseen by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the EASA and SES Basic Regulations. This means that ANSPs provide air traffic services to manned aircraft as they do today, while the proposed regulation establishes U-space airspace in which USSPs provide new types of services to unmanned aircraft. In summary, this is a first regulatory phase that is due to support operations as soon as the regulation is adopted and in the near future. It is focused on the principles of strategic and pre- TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 9 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 2. In summary — why and what tactical traffic management techniques (strategic because of the use of airspace management techniques to manage the U-space airspace, and pre-tactical because it is based on sharing information prior to and during flight). This section provides the rationale behind each of the provisions with the intention of facilitating understanding of the provisions. This section only provides the reader with the explanation and rationale behind the drafting of each provision as they are currently proposed. EXPLANATORY NOTE TO THE ARTICLES CHAPTER I PRINCIPLES AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ARTICLE 1 — SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE This article describes the general subject matter of the regulation and refers to the categories of persons or organisations to which the rules applies. It also exonerates some UAS operations from the application of the rules. The rules shall not apply to drones that are either toys, model aircraft within clubs and associations that receive an authorisation in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 or limited in their weight and speed (the UAS within the ‘open’ subcategory A1). Such types of operations are not considered to be high-risk and therefore they are exempted from the application of this regulation. ARTICLE 2 — OBJECTIVES This article includes a list of the objectives that this regulation is aiming to meet. Beyond the safety aspects which is the primary objective for EASA with this regulation, this regulation is considered a key enabler in opening the drones service market by allowing the conduct of more complex operations in a safe manner and granting fair access to certain volumes of airspace which are designated as U- space airspace. Moreover, the opening of a competitive market creates jobs and fosters positive economic growth. Because of the impact that drones have on society today, this regulation needs to take into consideration the concerns of the citizens in terms of security, environment and privacy. ARTICLE 3 — DEFINITIONS This article specifies only those terms that are necessary to understand the provisions of the regulation. As this regulation is closely linked to the two existing regulations on drones (Regulations (EU) Nos 2019/945 and 2019/947), the definitions included in those regulations are considered also to apply to this regulation and are not repeated here. Well-established terms are not included either. TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 10 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 2. In summary — why and what CHAPTER II ESTABLISHMENT OF THE U-SPACE ARTICLE 4 — DESIGNATION OF U-SPACE AIRSPACE This article is the ‘starting point’ for the management of air traffic in the U-space airspace, and therefore it is important to define the roles and responsibilities of all organisations that are involved in the U-space airspace. The Member States have full authority on the designation of the U-space airspace, and therefore have the power to decide how their airspace is designed, accessed, restricted, etc. As the U-space airspace can be established in either controlled or uncontrolled airspace, there is a need to take into account that there is already an organisation being designated to provide ATS services on an exclusive basis based on the Single European Sky (SES) regulation10 and ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs). Therefore, air traffic services (ATS) providers are designated to provide air traffic control (ATC) services in controlled airspace and flight information services (FIS) providers are providing FIS and alerting services in many parts of uncontrolled airspace. When designating U-space airspace and integrating USSPs to provide U-space services to UAS within controlled and uncontrolled airspace, the already established principles need to be considered and respected. Therefore, this article clarifies who is responsible for what kind of operators and how they should ensure their respective obligations. Finally, this article defines the specific coordination procedures between ANSPs and USSPs. The principle is that ANSPs provide air navigation services (ANS) to manned aircraft while USSPs provide U-space services to UAS operators. Both ANSPs and USSPs are certified to provide their respective services in a safe, secure and continuous manner. Within controlled airspace, U-space airspace is designated by the Member States and is dynamically managed by the ANSP. The safety of operations is guaranteed by the fact that manned and unmanned traffic will not mix with each other as they are dynamically segregated and ANS and U-space services are not provided at the same time in the same volume of airspace. In uncontrolled airspace, the airspace remains uncontrolled for manned aircraft. But when the Member States designate a volume of airspace as U-space airspace, there is a restriction (therefore it could be established as a restricted area): for UAS operators, to use U-space services to fly in that airspace; and for manned aircraft operators, to make available their position at regular intervals to the USSPs. The latter can provide manned traffic information to unmanned aircraft or can geo-fence the unmanned traffic around the manned traffic. The manned aircraft operator will also be informed about the U-space airspace and the unmanned traffic either by the FIS provider or by the USSP, depending on the specific implementation. This principle shall also be applied for uncontrolled traffic within controlled airspace (VFR traffic within class E). EASA considers that U-space and its services can bring added value in terms of safety also to the manned aircraft operations flying in uncontrolled airspace (and also for uncontrolled traffic within controlled airspace), as there will be more sharing of traffic information between manned and unmanned aircraft and also between manned aircraft operations themselves with the use of more affordable conspicuity devices and by sharing existing ground infrastructure. Of course, the way to ensure that there is no conflict between both operations 10 Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky (the service provision Regulation) (OJ L 96, 31.03.2004, p. 10) (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1582541782395&uri=CELEX:32004R0550). TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 11 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 2. In summary — why and what is that they mutually share the relevant information (position and possible trajectories and for UAS also planning, etc.). This article also underlines which U-space services are mandatory in the U-space airspace. Based on the assessment conducted by EASA of existing U-space services and their maturity, the following U- space services are considered necessary and mandatory to ensure safe and efficient operations in each U-space airspace implementation: network identification, geo-awareness, traffic information and UAS flight authorisation. In addition, Member States may decide that additional U-space services are needed to support safe and efficient UAS operations in specific volumes of U-space airspace implementation. They can decide to mandate those based on their risk assessment. This is considered necessary when, for safety reasons, they consider that such operations require more than the mandatory services listed in the regulation. One example could be weather services for operations taking place in a location where the wind or temperature are known to be hazardous factors. This article further clarifies the obligations of the Member States in the case of cross-border U-space airspace. ARTICLE 5 — COMMON INFORMATION SERVICE This article contains the requirements related to the provision of the necessary information for the functioning of U-space. The objective is to ensure that the information comes from trusted sources and that it is of sufficient quality, integrity and accuracy as well as security so that the USSPs and other users such as ASNPs can use this information with full reliability when providing their services. Based on the comments received during the AB consultation, EASA has reconsidered whether or not an organisation should be certified and designated by Member States as the CIS provider for each U- space airspace implementation in which they will provide the service. The fact that the Member States designate a CIS provider does not mean that there is only one CIS provider per Member State; it means that there is only one provider per U-space airspace. There could be as many CIS providers as there are designated U-space airspaces. The reason for having one CIS provider per U-space airspace is to ensure that there is one single point of contact, one single point of truth that consolidates all the information necessary for the functioning of the U-space airspace. The CIS is at the heart of the U-space system. The information will be managed by the CIS provider. This provider ensures that all the information can be exchanged between the various organisations to fulfil their obligations. This article specifies the necessary information that needs to be made available for the U-space and the quality and information security requirements applicable for the service provider. The CIS works on the basis that the exchange of information is being ensured by application of (open) communication protocols allowing USSPs and ANSPs to exchange information through the appropriate interface. The USSPs shall use the information provided by the CIS provider to provide U-space services to UAS operators. This article also specifies that the CIS provider cannot be a USSP itself. This is necessary to ensure that there is no conflict of interest when the common information is made available to the different USSPs and that there is fair competition in the U-space services market. This provision is not derived necessarily from a safety point of view but more from a competition and market perspective. TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 12 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 2. In summary — why and what CHAPTER III GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRCRAFT OPERATORS AND U-SPACE SERVICE PROVIDERS ARTICLE 6 — UAS OPERATORS This article covers the obligations for UAS operators when they operate in the U-space airspace. The proposed requirements are based on the assumption that UAS operators share the airspace with manned aircraft. To ensure that the risk of mid-air collision is adequately mitigated and an orderly flow of traffic is ensured, UAS operators are obliged to meet a number of requirements. At a strategic level, the UAS operators shall consider where U-space airspace is designated when preparing for their UAS operations in that airspace and establish a contract with one certified USSP of their choice that provides the mandatory set of U-space services in that airspace. At pre-tactical level, they are asked to submit their flight authorisation request form to the USSP they have a contract with if they want to operate in U-space airspace, and to ensure that they do so in accordance with the terms and conditions of the flight authorisation once it is granted by the USSP. Certain conditions need to be met prior to the flight: they are not allowed to commence their flight until they have been granted with a flight authorisation by the USSP and they have to ensure that they are able to comply with the terms and conditions given by the USSP in the granted flight authorisation. In case they cannot comply with the one granted by the USSP, they have to amend their original flight authorisation request. Compliance with the instructions of the USSP is required, as well as ensuring that their UAS are technically capable of receiving the U-space services and of operating in the U-space airspace. The obligations are based on today’s technical capability requirements for the ‘open’ category in the drone regulations but are additionally mandatory for the ‘specific’ category when flying in the U-space airspace (Regulations (EU) Nos 2019/945 and 2019/947). ARTICLE 7 — OBLIGATIONS FOR OPERATORS OF MANNED AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN U-SPACE AIRSPACE This article covers the cases when a manned aircraft operator operates in U-space airspace that is in uncontrolled airspace (and for uncontrolled traffic within controlled airspace such as VFR traffic in class E) and where UAS operate. In order to allow the USSPs to safely manage the unmanned aircraft in that U-space airspace and provide the UAS operator with manned traffic information, they need to know where the manned aircraft will be in the U-space airspace. They will then be able to take the necessary measures to ensure that the air risk is mitigated. The information that manned aircraft operators need to provide is their position at regular intervals, with the necessary level of performance in terms of integrity, accuracy, continuity and availability as well as security to allow the USSPs to make use of this data for the provision of U-space services. EASA intends to propose some AMC in that regard, to define which means can be used by manned aircraft operators for the purpose of U-space airspace. These AMC will be developed together with the affected manned aviation community (e.g. general aviation, helicopter operators and military/State stakeholders). ARTICLE 8 — U-SPACE SERVICE PROVIDERS A USSP is a new entity created by the regulation proposed with this Opinion. It is an organisation that is certified by the relevant competent authority to provide U-space services in U-space airspace(s) TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 13 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 2. In summary — why and what designated by the Member States. When the USSP provides services of a pan-European nature, the certification authority is EASA. USSPs provide services to UAS operators or to other USSPs. It is important to note that in order to be a USSP, the interested entity needs to demonstrate its capability of providing at least the four mandatory U-space services (network identification, geo- awareness, traffic information and UAS flight authorisation). They can contract out the provision of some or all U-space services to other entities as long as it remains under their management control. There can also be associations of USSPs or equivalent mechanisms as long as it is clear that there is one single entity responsible for providing the minimum set of services towards the UAS operators. In relation to the flight authorisation management, USSPs are required to take actions with regard to the flight authorisation request of the UAS operators (e.g. checking for completeness, plausibility and accuracy, accept it or not, notify the UAS operator, etc.). To provide their services, they have to use the information from the CIS (e.g. airspace restrictions, status of the airspace and available traffic information) and exchange information such as UAS traffic and flight authorisation requests when necessary with ANSPs. They can do this using the relevant technical interface means in order to exchange the information between themselves. USSPs need to be certified if they want to provide U-space services, but they do not need to be designated for the U-space airspace in which they aim to provide U-space services. Once they are certified, they can provide services in any U-space airspace in the EU. In order to be certified, they need to provide all mandatory U-space services, namely network identification, geo-awareness, traffic information and UAS flight authorisation as listed in Chapter IV. In the short term, it is not considered that USSPs would provide ATC-like service in controlled airspace. If USSPs would provide ATC-like services (e.g. separation services for manned aircraft) within controlled airspace, they would need to meet the same certification requirements that ATS providers meet today and be designated as stipulated in the SES Regulation. This is not foreseen in the near future but as soon as U-space services similar to tactical separation services are mature (developed and validated), EASA would review the applicable regulations and defined the appropriate regulation proportionate to the safety risks associated with the service providers (e.g. with requirements equivalent to those applicable to ATS providers). In uncontrolled airspace, USSPs provide services to UAS operators but the airspace being uncontrolled for manned aircraft, the manned aircraft need to be provided with information on where U-space airspace is established so that they can make available their position to the USSPs. This will allow USSPs to provide U-space services to UAS with the view to resolving potential conflict and ultimately avoiding collisions. All the requirements in this article are meant to ensure that USSPs can provide services to support the safe and efficient movement of aircraft in the U-space airspace. They are also meant to ensure coordination with the relevant ANSPs so that manned aircraft movements are safe and efficient. ARTICLE 9 — OCCURRENCE REPORTING This article requires USSPs to report occurrences, based on the current regulation on the occurrence reporting, analysis and follow-up of occurrences in civil aviation. This is applicable to all aviation actors and domains to which the regulation applies and it is considered important for safety that the occurrences in which U-space activities are involved also need to be reported. It is important to note that the present occurrence reporting regulation does not define all the U-space-related occurrences TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 14 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 2. In summary — why and what but EASA will make proposals to the European Commission on the relevant U-space occurrences in the very near future. CHAPTER IV U-SPACE SERVICES This chapter proposes four mandatory U-space services: network identification, geo-awareness, traffic information and UAS flight authorisation. It also describes supporting services that may be required to provide the mandatory ones. As mentioned in the recitals of the draft Regulation, it is important to underline that the main objectives of the U-space services are to: — prevent collision between UAS and between UAS and manned aviation; — expedite and maintain an orderly flow of UAS traffic; — provide information and instructions relevant for the safe and efficient conduct of UAS operations; — notify appropriate organisations regarding emergency or abnormal situations with the UAS which may endanger people and goods on the ground or manned aviation; and — ensure that environmental, security and privacy requirements, applicable in the Member States, are met. The proposal to mandate those U-space services does not only support safety but also ensures market competitiveness, as UAS operators will be able to receive the same services and therefore have the same interfaces with USSPs to operate in all U-space airspaces across the EU. This approach could also enable having one single interface with one USSP when conducting operations across the EU. This will also enable free movements of USSPs across the EU as the services provided and the certificates received are the same across the EU. If the implementation of U-space is not ensured through commonly agreed and validated standards, it will create dis-harmonisation in the EU, inefficiency and this may have an impact on safety in the long term when more autonomous operations are foreseen. Also, if the U-space services and the way they are implemented are not harmonised, this could lead to having different requirements on UAS equipment and capabilities across the EU for UAS operators. As soon as more U-space services mature or as soon as additional U-space services are needed for safety (e.g. tactical de-confliction service) or for other reasons, amendments to the regulation will be proposed by EASA to the European Commission based on a validated proof of concept, and harmonised and commonly agreed and validated standards. The list of services contains a description of the requirements to be met. ARTICLE 10 — NETWORK IDENTIFICATION SERVICE This article clarifies that the identification service proposed in the U-space framework is based on the requirements for remote identification contained in Regulation (EU) 2019/945 to avoid requiring additional UAS equipment or capabilities. Nevertheless, the purpose of the service is complementing the original intent of the one in Regulation (EU) 2019/945. Whereas the remote identification in Regulation (EU) 2019/945 supports the authorities in aspects related to security and privacy, the network identification service within U-space airspace operationally supports traffic safety and the TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 15 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 2. In summary — why and what traceability of the unmanned aircraft during its flight. Indeed, based on this information, the USSPs can share UAS traffic information between themselves and therefore provide traffic information to UAS operations. This service meets the objective of providing advice and information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of UAS flights. The content of the information is based on the list included in Regulation (EU) 2019/945 for consistency and in order to avoid additional UAS equipment or capabilities in particular for the ‘open’ category. In addition, it is now specified that both broadcast and network information shall be received. This is consistent with the upcoming amendment to Regulation (EU) 2019/945 and supports the redundancy under certain use cases, although limited to certain cases of U-space airspace implementation. ARTICLE 11 — GEO-AWARENESS SERVICE This article contains the service requirements when USSPs provide geo-awareness service to UAS operators. The geo-awareness contained in Regulation (EU) 2019/945 is related to the UAS capabilities and the requirements for the Member States when they decide to establish geographical zones or for the UAS operators to follow and comply with the specification of these zones. This services aims to support UAS operators in fulfilling these obligations as it provides this information (where it is allowed to fly and where not) with the level of accuracy and other performance for which it has been certified. By using this service in a U-space airspace, the UAS operators can discharge part of their responsibility related to this UAS operator obligation. ARTICLE 12 — FLIGHT AUTHORISATION SERVICE This article provides the description for the flight authorisation service. This service is mandatory in both controlled and uncontrolled airspace and applies to UAS operators only, not to manned aircraft — like the rest of the U-space services. The reason for being mandatory also in uncontrolled airspace is the need for situational awareness of the USSPs of all the UAS traffic intending to operate in the U- space airspace. This allows USSPs to apply the prioritisation rules prior to providing the authorisation. It also allows them to pre-tactically manage traffic flow. With the information about the intended flight and other information about the type of the operations and its endurance as well as some related aircraft performance, the USSPs should be able to de-conflict the potentially conflicting flights before these flights take place. In order to do so, when there is more than one USSP providing U-space services in the U-space airspace, all USSPs are obliged to share the flight authorisation requests between themselves (of course adhering to the GDPR requirements). The platform that was foreseen for all USSPs providing services in a certain case of U-space airspace implementation was named in the previous draft ‘USSP platform’. Based on the comments received during the consultation which indicated that EASA’s proposal was going too much into an architecture, the requirements related to the USSP platform have been included into the USSPs’ obligations and some other are proposed as requirements for the CIS provider. Still, the objective is the same. In some cases of U-space airspace implementation, this obligation for the USSPs to be able to identify and share information between all the USSPs providing services within U-space airspace is fulfilled with the so-called discovery and synchronisation service. This approach will be included by EASA in the associated AMC and GM in the near future. As mentioned above, in Article 6 (UAS operators), the flight authorisation service is provided on the basis of the UAS operator having filled in the flight authorisation request form (former flight plan) that UAS operators need to fill in before flight departure. The content of this form is provided in Appendix 2 to the Regulation. TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 16 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 2. In summary — why and what ARTICLE 13 — TRAFFIC INFORMATION SERVICE This article contains the requirements for the provision of known air traffic information relevant to the UAS operator’s flight (those in close proximity to the position or intended route of the UAS flight). To provide this service, the USSP may use the information on other traffic available to them through the network identification system or through other technical means (e.g. from manned aircraft ADS- B, transponders, etc.) implemented in the U-space airspace. The main objective of this service is to alert and to help the UAS operator to avoid a collision. This service provides the alerts, air situation and known/predicted (e.g. if tracking service is available) traffic to the UAS operator. Detailed and accurate information about the position of other unmanned aircraft and the update frequency of the information will need to be identified and being assessed during the USSP certification process for the specific U-space airspace implementation. ARTICLE 14 — TRACKING SERVICE This article contains the requirements when tracking service is used as a supporting service to provide traffic information services and support, for instance, the flight authorisation service. This service can be used to track the real-time and historical telemetry data of the UAS if the necessary supporting infrastructure exists and the UAS is flying in the range of the service capability. The providers of such service can track UAS through the signal between the aircraft and its remote controller as well as through additional surveillance observations available for the same UAS flight. They can then fuse all this information to calculate/estimate a UAS flight track. To be able to provide this service, there is a need to have different UAS flight information sources. The performance expected from this service will be based on the performance of the UAS flight information sources and the method and algorithm used for the tracking fusion. They shall be commensurate with the specific U-space airspace implementation and this shall be assessed during the certification process. In practical terms, this service receives data from the different tracking sources coming from the USSPs (e.g. e-identification), UAS or the CIS provider to fuse it into unique and reliable UAS flight tracks. ARTICLE 15 — WEATHER INFORMATION SERVICE This article lays down the requirements for the weather services and what weather information should be provided by USSPs providing weather service. This service collects the weather information necessary to support UAS operational decisions in a specific U-space airspace and support the provision of other U-space services such as the flight authorisation service. It is recognised that the weather information for UAS operations may be different from the one provided by today’s meteorological service providers; in particular, as regards support of operations under the ‘open’ and ‘specific’ categories. UAS can fly near buildings and in areas where current aeronautical meteorological information is not always provided. Therefore, this article specifies a minimum content of weather information to be available for the purpose of UAS operations in the near future. It does not exclude the possibility that current aeronautical meteorological service providers can also provide this service. TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 17 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 2. In summary — why and what The proposed regulation does not specify who may provide this service. Regulation (EU) 2017/373 11 contains the provisions on aeronautical meteorological services for MET providers that provide aeronautical meteorological services within ATM/ANS. In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 (the SES service provision regulation), MET providers have to be certified to provide MET services; however, they may be designated (or not) by Member States to provide services. This is the case for MET providers providing aeronautical meteorological services within ATM/ANS. The legal basis for U-space services and their providers does not require any designation of these organisations and, therefore, this leaves the door open as to which organisation may provide weather services in the U-space airspace. ARTICLE 16 — CONFORMANCE MONITORING SERVICE This article includes a general description of the objective of the conformance monitoring service and what the requirements are for the USSPs providing this service. This service checks the current track of each UAS with respect to its planned mission as defined in the approved flight authorisation and compares it with it. It also considers the existence of new geo-fencing areas dynamically established and not existing before the flight authorisation was approved and alerting the UAS operators when detecting non-conformities. The monitoring is performed per UAS flight. When non-conformities of the UAS flight are detected, and potential hazardous situations are evident, the USSPs shall also alert other traffic (manned or UAS) and other USSPs or other relevant authorities with the available means. It is acknowledged that for some VLOS flights in areas of very low traffic, the monitoring service will be of little added value. This is however a U-space service that supports achieving the objectives of the Regulation as soon as traffic density and complexity increase. CHAPTER V CIS PROVIDERS AND U-SPACE SERVICE PROVIDERS CERTIFICATION This chapter covers the certification scheme for both the CIS provider and the USSPs. It is considered that the certification provisions under this chapter can apply to both, independently of the fact that the certified CIS provider is designated by the Member State because it provides the CIS on an exclusive basis whereas the USSPs are only required to be certified. USSPs do not need to be designated as there may be more than one USSP providing services in the same U-space airspace implementation. This chapter sets up the framework for the establishment of conditions under which the CIS provider or USSPs are allowed to provide services, based on the safety risk associated with the services they provide, including concrete rules for possible suspension and revocation of certificates. ARTICLE 17 — APPLICATION FOR A CIS PROVIDER AND U-SPACE SERVICE PROVIDER CERTIFICATE The provision of U-space services /CIS within the EU shall be subject to certification by the relevant competent authority established by the Member States. In the case of USSPs that wish to provide U- 11 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 of 1 March 2017 laying down common requirements for providers of air traffic management/air navigation services and other air traffic management network functions and their oversight, repealing Regulation (EC) No 482/2008, Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1034/2011, (EU) No 1035/2011 and (EU) 2016/1377 and amending Regulation (EU) No 677/2011 (OJ L 62, 8.3.2017, p. 1) (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?qid=1582472923004&uri=CELEX:32017R0373). TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 18 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 2. In summary — why and what space services across the EU (pan-European services), the certifying authority is EASA. This article provides the framework for the recognition of certificates at EU level. In order to provide the CIS as well as U-space services, both the CIS provider and the USSP have to be certified by the competent authority. The certification scheme aims at preserving public interest requirements, most notably in terms of safety, and the certificate confirms that the CIS provider or USSP meets the requirements contained in the Regulation for providing specific services to the level of performance defined for the particular U-space airspace implementation and commensurate with the risk associated with the services they provide. The competent authority issues the certificate provided they comply with the requirements referred to in Article 6 and those contained in Chapter IV for the U-space services they provide. Certificates are issued for a bundle of such services (network identification, geo-awareness, traffic information and flight authorisation plus any supporting U-space services used to provide the mandatory ones) and the competent authority shall check the validity of the certificate on a regular basis. The certificates shall specify the rights and obligations of the CIS provider and USSP, with particular regard to safety and also with regard to security of information (e.g. cybersecurity). In order to maintain their certificate valid once it has been issued, the USSP and CIS provider shall respect the conditions and limitations set out by the certifying competent authority in Appendices 2 and 3 for the USSP (see paragraph below) and CIS provider respectively. Such conditions should be objectively justified, non- discriminatory, proportionate and transparent. Appendices 2 and 3 introduce the standard certificate forms for the USSP and the CIS provider. By introducing this single certificate concept, all the privileges of a USSP are to be mentioned in the attachment to the certificate specifying the types of U-space services, the respective conditions and associated limitations. For the CIS provider, the certificate form does not include an attachment with the type of services, conditions and limitations of the certificate because the CIS provider shall always provide the required CIS for the U-space airspace for which the CIS provider has been designated. This facilitates the mutual recognition of certificates across the EU. ARTICLE 18 — CONDITIONS FOR OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE This article lists the conditions for obtaining a CIS or a USSP certificate. It is based on criteria and requirements similar to those used for ATM/ANS providers (those contained in Subpart B of Annex III to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373) to obtain and maintain their certificate. These requirements are considered to be also applicable to CIS providers and USSPs providing services to UAS operators in the U-space airspace as their services are of a similar nature to that of the ones provided by ATM/ANS providers. As both the CIS provider and USSPs are organisations that directly contribute to safe UAS operations within U-space airspace, it is important that they have a risk-based management system in place. In order to apply this system and to take into account the different types of CIS providers/USSPs and the performance of the services they manage, the proposal lists some necessary requirements for the management system. The elements of this management system are therefore harmonised for all the different types of CIS providers or USSPs, but their application may be different depending on the different services provided. Therefore, the proposed management system provides a proportionate application of requirements to both providers. TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 19 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 2. In summary — why and what Subpart B of Annex III to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 is referenced as it includes the elements of the management system, the procedures to manage the changes to such system and what to do in case some activities are contracted to other organisations. In addition, personnel and facilities requirements, the storage and protection of records as well as the provision of an operations manual are also important elements to assess as a prerequisite for granting a certificate. The management system required for USSPs and CIS providers is focused on managing the performance of the services they provide and as such is focused on quality and managing the relevant interfaces with those providers and organisations that have the safety view (ATC providers and UAS operators). Similarly to ANSPs, when the USSPs provide ATC-like services such as tactical de-confliction services to UAS operators and therefore they have the safety view, they will be required to have a safety management system in place. Once they can demonstrate that the way they are organised corresponds to the provision of their services and those are provided to the level of the required performance, CIS providers/USSPs may be granted with a certificate by the competent authority. CIS providers and USSPs are also required to implement an information security management system which is quite important for these organisations as in order to provide their services, they will use highly automated systems with a high degree of digitalisation. In addition, they will need to implement the necessary liability and insurance covers corresponding to their services and the relevant emergency response as conditions to obtain a certificate. ARTICLE 19 — VALIDITY OF THE CERTIFICATE This article mitigates the situations where a CIS provider or USSP does no longer comply with the requirements applicable to it. Two major elements are taken into account: the operational and financial performance. If the competent authority finds that the holder of a certificate no longer satisfies the requirements, it can act appropriately to ensure that safety is not compromised. Such measures may include the revocation of the certificate. The validity of the certificate is unlimited provided that the CIS provider or USSP continues to operate in compliance with the requirements of this Regulation. This approach should facilitate and promote the implementation of a risk-based oversight scheme by the competent authority, and also allow for continuous oversight based on the identified risks instead of oversight aiming at ensuring compliance and closing the findings only at the stage of the re-certification process. A specific paragraph reflects the situation where the provider is not active, either at the beginning or during its activities. This is to ensure that the certificate serves its main purpose which is to ensure that the provider operates and continues to operate under the applicable requirements. TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 20 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 2. In summary — why and what CHAPTER VI COMPETENT AUTHORITIES This chapter includes provisions concerning the competent authorities, which are responsible for issuing those certificates and exercising oversight and enforcement tasks. ARTICLE 20 — COMPETENT AUTHORITY The main objective of this article is to ensure that the competent authorities have the capacity to assess the resources needed to effectively perform their certification, oversight and enforcement tasks and to act accordingly should this not be the case. It also specifies that EASA is the competent authority for the CIS providers or USSPs providing pan-European services, that is if they provide services within more than one Member State or when the services are provided from outside the territory to which the EU Treaty applies. ARTICLE 21 — TASKS OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES This article proposes requirements for competent authorities that perform certification, oversight and enforcement tasks in respect of the CIS provider and USSPs. It also lists a number of obligations that are directly related to the functioning of the U-space system. With a view to ensuring that the requirements for the CIS provider or USSPs are complied with at all times while ensuring that the competent authorities can effectively perform their tasks, those authorities are granted certain specific investigatory powers. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with the applicable national rules and procedures, while having due regard to a number of specific elements which are meant to ensure a fair balance between all rights and interests. Competent authorities also need to act in order to ensure that the U-space system as a whole can function properly. This is why they are mandated to establish and maintain a registration system to record the service providers involved in the U-space, to determine the type of data to be made available to those who need it, and the way this data can be exchanged in order to guarantee interoperability of the systems. ARTICLE 22 — EXCHANGE OF SAFETY INFORMATION AND SAFETY MEASURES This article highlights the importance of safety information exchange between the national authorities and EASA so that they can take the necessary measures to address the safety issues and notify them to the persons or organisations concerned. ARTICLE 23 — PRICING OF COMMON INFORMATION SERVICE The CIS provider designated per U-space airspace is one. This is a monopoly and the price of the CIS thus needs to be regulated. The price should reflect the cost for the management of the CIS, with a markup reflecting the risks associated with its activities. ANSPs and USSPs should exchange safety information through the CIS for free. ARTICLE 24 — AMENDMENTS TO COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/373 This article proposes two amendments to Regulation (EU) 2017/373 that lays down common requirements for ANSPs. As the interaction of USSPs with ANSPs is necessary to ensure the exchange of information and the coordination for air traffic management in the U-space airspace, it is necessary TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 21 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 2. In summary — why and what to put requirements on the ANSPs. Because these entities are regulated under the said Regulation, it is proposed to amend the relevant provisions of this Regulation to include such ANSP obligations. ARTICLE 25 – ENTRY INTO FORCE AND APPLICABILITY It is important to provide Member States, potential USSPs and CIS providers as well as ANSPs, UAS and unmanned aircraft operators with sufficient time to allow them to effectively implement the Regulation. However, it is also important to ensure that the implementation of what it is considered to be the first-phase regulation on U-space does not lead to obsolete technical solutions. Therefore, the proposal is that the implementation time is 1 year after Regulation enters into force. It is equally important to ensure that the implementation of this first-phase regulation provides valuable results based on which more advanced services and procedures can be developed at regulatory and standardisation level. The proposal of 1 year for transition period considers also the fact that there are already some industry standards developed related to the mandatory U-space services, as well as the fact that there are similar cases of implementation already within the different Member States. 2.5. What are the stakeholders’ views — outcome of the consultation The draft Opinion was consulted from 8 October to 30 October 2019 and more than 2 500 comments were received from 93 organisations. As shown below, those organisations were mainly ANSPs, drone associations/operators, drone industry and competent authorities. Nevertheless, the general aviation community as well as specific private companies interested in the draft Opinion provided many comments. Figure 1 provides the distribution of the comments per type of stakeholders. Stakeholders Others 16% Drone industry 24% Other associations Drone industry 5% ANSPs GA associations Authorities Authorities 23% ANSPs 18% Other associations Others GA associations 14% Figure 1: Distribution of the comments received per type of stakeholders TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 22 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 2. In summary — why and what As shown below, the most commented articles are the ones on the services. The graphic also shows hundreds of comments on the explanatory note. Of course, this part contains also comments on services and all other articles so the statistics is an estimate. Figure 2 provides the distribution of comments per article/chapter. Number of comments per article/chapter 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Figure 2: Distribution of the comments received per article/chapter Some of the comments conflicted with each other due to the variety of the stakeholders. The Appendix to this Opinion (a stand-alone document) is a comment-response document where both the main comments received and EASA’s responses to them are presented. The following provides a non-exhaustive list of the main subjects commented: — The regulatory development for the U-space is too rushed and EASA/the European Commission should take more time to develop it; — The overall system of the U-space and how it should work is not understood/clear; — The sharing of responsibilities between USSPs and ANSPs is unclear; — It is not clear if the proposal applies only to unmanned aircraft operators; — The scope of the regulation should apply to the ‘open’ category drones; — The U-space services are not mature and their description should demonstrate how they can contribute to safety; — The relationship between the common information function and the USSP platform; — The impossibility for the provider of the Common Information to become a USSP; — The regulation should only be applicable 2 years after its publication. In addition to the input from the AB consultation, EASA took into account the following elements: TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 23 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 2. In summary — why and what — the adoption in June 2019 of the two Regulations on rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft (Regulation (EU) 2019/947) and on unmanned aircraft systems and on third- country operators of unmanned aircraft systems (Regulation (EU) 2019/945); — comments and position papers received from stakeholders after the consultation; — the feedback received after the High Level Conference on Drones held in Amsterdam in December 2019; and — comments received during several meetings with Member States, ANSPs, industry associations, model aircraft associations and clubs as well as the general aviation community. 2.6. What are the expected benefits and drawbacks of the proposals BENEFITS The proposal should affect as little as possible the existing ATM system and manned aircraft operators and at the same time maintain equitable access to airspace. It will also facilitate the overall growth of the European UAS services market, as the regulation enables harmonised implementation of U-space across the EU while mitigating the associated risks. The proposed U-space regulatory framework should support and enable operational, technical and business developments, and provide fair access to all airspace users. The market should drive the delivery of the U-space services to adequately reflect UAS operators’ needs. As regards UAS operators, they will be able follow the same rules and be provided with the same mandatory U-space services wherever they operate in the EU. As regards USSPs, they will be subject to the same certification and service requirements. The proposed mandatory set of U-space services should facilitate UAS operations in the EU through the development of several components such as data exchange infrastructure, technical enablers, and procedures for coordination and information exchange. The proposal foresees implementation that is supported by the necessary open standard communication protocols that enables the coordination of all the actions undertaken by the U-space actors and all the interactions between those actors. CIS is particularly important as the obligation to make the information available to and share it with all the participants in the U-space will increase safety by providing essential flight information such as the actual aircraft positions, and flight authorisation requests, where necessary, as well as airspace constraints. As regards manned aircraft operators, the proposal ensures the situational awareness among aircraft operators operating in the U-space airspace which is established in uncontrolled airspace (and for uncontrolled traffic within controlled airspace such as VFR traffic within class E). The U-space airspace established in uncontrolled airspace and the potential use of U-space services by all participants can provide an additional safety layer for today’s manned aviation flying in uncontrolled airspace. A European regulatory framework will enable the national competent authorities to maintain high levels of safety when allowing UAS operations in their airspace. The European regulation will also facilitate a level playing field when the different competent authorities of the different Member States or EASA manage the approval process for USSPs. The oversight and approval functions of competent authorities will ensure safety in a harmonised way. DRAWBACKS TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 24 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 2. In summary — why and what The development of the U-space concept is still ongoing and validations of all originally defined U- space services, rules and procedures have not been completed as there are still ongoing validation activities within SESAR and national research and demonstration projects. For instance, due to the lack of experience with tactical de-confliction techniques for drones, the way to manage UAS traffic within the U-space airspace today can only be based on strategic and pre-tactical de-confliction techniques. The main principle followed in the U-space airspace is similar to the one used in the (advanced) dynamic flexible use of airspace, which is already used for manned aviation. New concepts such as tactical separation (separation minima, rules and procedures), and DAA systems, capabilities and technologies are not considered to be mature enough at this stage to be included or considered in a first-phase regulation on U-space. Similarly, promising developments in other areas, such as information and communications technology (ICT) and mobile telecommunications, which may become the foundation for connectivity between UAS, operators and the USSP’s systems used to provide services within the U-space airspace, are still to be validated for use in a U-space environment. This is also the case for the future ‘CNS’ infrastructure that will support more advanced operations within the U-space airspace. Therefore, the implementation of this first-phase regulation will cater for the expected UAS traffic and complexity of the near future. Nevertheless, amendments will be required as soon as the U-space concept matures to allow for full deployment of the U-space. This Opinion should be considered the first step towards the U-space implementation. It is likely that the fast ongoing technological developments and the expected evolution of the operational concepts and needs will require additional regulatory actions in the short term in order to ensure continuous harmonised development of the U-space implementation. TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 25 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 3. Impact assessment (IA) 3. Impact assessment (IA) 3.1. General context UAS operations are a novelty in aviation as their development is at the initial phase, the traffic management of unmanned aircraft has to be considered in a very complex air traffic environment where already approved organisations are already present and providing services, and new services to support UAS operations need to be proven in a newly designated airspace by Member States as U- space airspace. Therefore, this chapter highlights the main elements to help understand in which context this impact assessment has been drafted. What is meant by U-space? U-space is meant as a set of services provided in an airspace volume designated by the Member State to manage a large number of UAS operations in a safe and efficient manner. The aim of the U-space services is to provide the UAS operators with information about where and how high can they fly, the status of the airspace volume in which they intend to fly, information about other traffic that may be conflicting with their planned trajectory/mission, and weather information such as wind. Furthermore, the aim of the U-space services is to support the UAS operators by processing their flight authorisation requests. 3.1.1. Current regulatory situation and developments The European Parliament and Council have adopted the amendment to the Basic Regulation which extends the scope of the EASA system to all UAS sizes and categories. This has allowed the adoption by the European Commission of the new set of rules for safe operations of UAS in the ‘open’ and ‘specific’ categories12. The UAS regulations in the ‘open’ and ‘specific’ categories contain some building blocks that enable the development of some of the U-space mandatory services. These are the e-identification capability of the UAS to enable the network e-identification service and the geo-awareness capability of the UAS (within the ‘open’ category) to enable the geo-awareness service in the U-space. In addition, the registration system of the UAS operators required by these regulations enables the necessary access to UAS operator information by the USSP and also supports the network e-identification services. The establishment of the geographical zones by Member States also provides essential data for the functioning of the U-space. All these requirements need to be complemented with additional U-space services to enable more UAS traffic density and complexity in the near future. Last but not least, Declarations of High Level Conferences have called for the development and implementation of a U-Space system13.. 3.1.2. EU policies concerned The Commission wants Europe to lead the transition to a healthy planet and a new digital world, by bringing people together and upgrading our unique social market economy to fit today’s new 12 https://www.easa.europa.eu/regulations#regulations-uas---unmanned-aircraft-systems 13 Declarations of Riga (2015), Warsaw (2016), Helsinki (2017) and Amsterdam (2018 and 2019). TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 26 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 3. Impact assessment (IA) ambitions14. The Green Deal of the Commission together with the digitalisation agenda have concrete consequences for transport. These policies affect transport — responsible for 27 % of the bloc’s greenhouse gas emissions. Transport is the only major sector in which emissions have grown since 1990, driving an increase in the EU’s overall emissions in 2017. As the EU wants to deliver on the climate commitments made with the Paris Agreement, Europe needs smarter and more ambitious transport policies. The introduction of UAS operations and U-space as an enabler of these UAS operations offer an opportunity to greening aviation as in particular UAS operations under the ‘open’ and ‘specific’ categories make more use of electric and hybrid propulsion technologies. At the same time, it is expected that UAS and the enabling traffic management of those (such as U-space) can offer connected and more digital and automated mobility and therefore be part of smart mobility initiatives at the cities. 3.1.3. Current UAS operations There are no coherent European-wide data on UAS operations collected on a regular basis today. Data collected by EUROCONTROL as part of a 2019 survey of 14 Member States showed a steady growth of registered operators between Q1/2018 and Q3/2019, with important seasonal variations. The data related to visual line of sight (VLOS) operations indicate that the total number of authorisation requests by UAS operators in Q3/2019 has somehow exceeded the number of approvals that are presently managed by the authorities. With the implementation of the regulations, it could be concluded that there is a need to streamline the approval systems to be able to cope with the approvals of/authorisation requests for UAS operations. This is the reason why EASA has developed and is continuously developing standard scenarios and predefined risk assessments based on the available mature national experiences. This aims to support the UAS operators operational authorisation and approval processes. In addition, the approval of some BVLOS operations may require airspace restrictions such as segregated airspace to be able to mitigate the air risk and therefore these airspace mitigation measures are difficult to be taken as it takes time and wider consultation with all the stakeholders concerned (e.g. ANSPs, military authorities through the local airspace management cells). This can be considered as a reason for not having more BVLOS operations today in the European airspace. 3.1.4. International context There are several initiatives across the world already implementing some basic UAS traffic management (UTM) services in their airspace15. For instance, in the USA, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) opened up airspace for UAS operations around airports through the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) programme. The LAANC programme is automating the FAA authorisation process on the basis of a set of requirements. It provides UAS operators with access to controlled airspace at or below 400 feet, awareness of where pilots can and cannot fly, as well as it provides air traffic professionals with visibility into where and when UAS are operating. The 14 COM(2019) 640 final – The European Green Deal. 15 This is shown in the map of global UTM implementation initiatives presented at https://gutma.org/map/Main_Page. TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 27 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 3. Impact assessment (IA) LAANC is available to pilots operating under the Small UAS Rule Part 107, or under the exception for Recreational Flyers. In China, some initial UTM services are being implemented. The Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) issued rules on identification over the cloud- and geo-fencing. Since May 16 2019, a cloud- based system has been collecting the e-identification of the UAS to enable real-time flight management. UAS weighing more than 7 kg and operating BVLOS must be connected with the UAS cloud in real time. In Europe, there are several Member States that are taking initiatives to develop and implement initial U-space services — mainly static geo-awareness and flight authorisation. This is the case for Switzerland, Poland, Finland, Italy, Spain and France among others. Some of these initiatives are related to U-space demonstration projects within the SESAR programme (but also outside the SESAR programme) and they have not always reached the deployment phase. In some Member States, these initiatives implement the requirements for the Member States to provide information on geographical zones to the UAS operators should they establish said zones. Such initiatives are considered the very basic steps for the implementation of the U-space as foreseen by the proposed Regulation, but it needs to be noted that they do not pertain to U-space services as proposed in the regulation. Additionally, there is no harmonisation among these initiatives in terms of scope, approach and standards being used. 3.2. What is the issue? Unmanned aircraft are all aircraft without a pilot on board. They can be big or small, they can carry passengers and/or cargo and they can perform many different types of operations which can be carried out VLOS or BVLOS. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 already contain the requirements for UAS operations in the ‘open’ and ‘specific’ categories16. The implementation of these regulations will already enable harmonisation of UAS operations across the EU. In addition, there are regulatory developments in place within EASA to make proposals to the European Commission for the regulatory framework for UAS operations under the ‘certified’ category which will allow more complex operations such as the transportation of passengers and regular cargo or package deliveries within an urban environment. There are several predictions made by various industry stakeholders’ studies that estimate that the number of UAS operations will grow significantly within the European airspace17. In particular, as technology develops, higher levels of automation will be used. The question is why the existing air traffic management system that keeps air traffic safe and prevents air collisions is not used and extended for the purpose of UTM. The answer is that the existing ATM system is a human-centric system and therefore it is not possible for the human being to be able to manage a large number of highly automated UAS operations. Even if many tasks and processes are today digitalised and automated within the ATM systems, it is not feasible for human beings to cope with and manage the expected high numbers of UAS operations. Hence, while the Single European 16 The concept of ‘open’ and ‘specific’ categories is described under https://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/civil- drones-rpas/drones-regulatory-framework-background. 17 Airbus forecasted for 2035 that a number approximately equivalent to that of daily flights in European airspace today — over 30 000 in one day — are going to take place in one single hour over one single city. TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 28 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 3. Impact assessment (IA) Sky framework regulates the provision of air navigation services for the safe operation of general air traffic, a complementary traffic management system is required to for the management of UAS traffic. The development of a European regulatory framework for U-space aims to enable safe and harmonised use of these technologies. 3.2.1. Safety risk assessment As there is no sufficient data to perform a through quantitative safety risk assessment of the proposed regulation, EASA will use a general qualitative approach to conduct the safety risk assessment of the options analysed in this impact assessment. There is little experience with the implementation of the basic U-space services proposed in the regulation. Therefore, the assessment of the impacts is done on a qualitative basis only. To perform the safety impact assessment, EASA has been inspired by the approach taken by Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS) to develop the air risk model which led to Annex C and Annex D to the specific operations risk assessment (SORA)18. This model has also been adopted by EASA as AMC to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947. Indeed, Annexes C and D are supporting UAS operators in demonstrating to their competent authority how they mitigate adequately (to an acceptable level) the risk of mid-air collisions with manned aircraft. The air risk model of SORA is based on ICAO Doc 9854, Section 2.7 ‘Conflict management’. As indicated in Annex C to SORA, SORA has used UTM/U-space mitigations to a limited extent, because UTM/U-space was only at the early stages of development when said Annex was prepared. When UTM/U-space provide adequate mitigations to limit the risk of UAS encounters with manned aircraft, an operator can apply and obtain credit for these mitigations — whether they are strategic or tactical. There is little experience within the European Member States on the implementation of the basic U- space services which are considered mandatory by the proposed regulation within the European airspace. In addition, the national demonstrations have not provided so far safety data based on which a safety risk assessment can be performed. There is safety data on UAS/UAS incursions, near mid-air collisions between manned aircraft and UAS and some data related to UAS incidents and accidents where the UAS crashed on the ground on in the water/sea. At the moment, this safety data is not consolidated either worldwide or by EASA19 as there is no harmonisation in the definitions used for these events. This should be done by EASA in the near future. In addition, it is difficult to estimate which of these events would have been prevented if U- space airspace and U-space services would have been implemented as foreseen in the proposed regulation. In general, it can be assumed that with a harmonised implementation of U-space services, some of these events such as UAS incursions due to lack of UAS operators’ awareness of where they can fly or not could have been avoided. But this can only be done in a general manner. The approach that EASA will use is to justify how the proposed regulation will cover in a general manner each of three conflict management pillars defined in ICAO Doc 9854: — Strategic mitigation 18 http://jarus-rpas.org/sites/jarus-rpas.org/files/jar_doc_06_jarus_sora_annex_c_v1.0.pdf 19 There are various databases containing UAS-related incidents available within some civil aviation authorities and industry. TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 29 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 3. Impact assessment (IA) — Separation provision — Collision avoidance 3.2.2. Who is affected? UAS operators: All legal or natural persons operating or intending to operate one or more unmanned aircraft. UAS operators that operate unmanned aircraft that are considered toys or those under subcategory A1, and UAS operators that conduct operations under model aircraft clubs and associations, and wish to operate within the established U-space airspace, will be obliged to use U- space services and conclude a contract with one of the certified USSPs for that particular U-space airspace implementation. UAS operators are benefitting from those services as the latter support them in conducting their operations safely and therefore in delivering their services. USSPs: They are the single interface for the UAS operators requesting to be provided with U-space services in U-space airspace. They are affected as they need to obtain a certificate in accordance with the regulation in order to become a USSP. They need to provide the complete set of mandatory U- space services to become a USSP. They also need to have arrangements with ANSPs and use the necessary information from the CIS. Airspace users (other than UAS operators): With the proposed way to implement U-space in controlled and uncontrolled airspace, mainly manned aircraft operators operating in uncontrolled airspace are potentially affected as they would need to comply with some requirements that they did not have to comply with before the implementation of the regulation. Indeed, they will need to make their position available with some performance requirements to allow USSPs to provide UAS operators with the relevant services and information with the aim of resolving potential conflicts. In the coming years, U-space implementation is foreseen to take place in very low level (below the minimum heights for VFR), in urban environment or around aerodromes. When the implementation takes place within controlled airspace, manned aircraft operators are provided with ATM/ANS services as today and the ANSPs are in charge of coordinating with USSPs to avoid conflicts between manned and unmanned traffic. Therefore, the main impact of this proposal is on manned aircraft when conducting operations in uncontrolled airspace or as uncontrolled traffic. General Aviation, rotorcraft operators and military or State airspace users are the airspace users mostly affected by the proposal. ATM/ANS providers: ATM/ANS providers provide today ATM/ANS services to manned aircraft in the flight information regions (FIRs) of the Member States. The type of services (ATC or FIS) provided is determined by the Member States. U-space airspace will be designated by the Member States either in controlled or uncontrolled airspace. Existing ATM/ANS providers will need to establish interfaces with the USSPs to ensure that flight authorisations are coordinated and traffic information as well as the status of the portion of airspace designated for the operations of UAS are shared as necessary. In the case ATM/ANS providers were also the designated CIS provider, they would need to comply with some additional requirements. Member States: They need to designate the necessary U-space airspaces and the CIS provider(s). They also need to establish relevant performance requirements to be met. The relevant authorities of the Member States concerned are at local, national and EU level (EASA), depending on the type of regulations/operational procedures to be put in place and on the enforcement measures to be established and applied. TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 30 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 3. Impact assessment (IA) Competent authorities: They need to certify and oversee the USSPs and the CIS provider(s) under their responsibility. In the case of pan-European service providers or USSPs whose principal place of business is outside the EU but are seeking a certificate to provide U-space services within the European airspace, the competent authority for certification and oversight is EASA. Military authorities: They could be affected by the regulation but in principle they are the ones that will provide constraints and restrictions deemed critical to preserve national security for the U-space airspace through the CIS. Other authorities: Local authorities (at the regional or even city/local level) that based on each Member State’s administrative organisation may have been delegated some tasks under this regulation could be affected. They can provide their input, data and restrictions in relation to environment, security or public acceptance. As regards police and law enforcement authorities, U- space is a way to have additional access to UAS network e-identification information from the UAS operators flying in the U-space airspace. This way they also contribute to addressing public concerns. 3.2.3. How could the issue/problem evolve If no action is taken, Member States will continue implementing U-space following their national initiatives. Individual actions in each Member State may result in different approaches and therefore could eventually penalise harmonisation and fair competition. This will negatively affect European industry and European UAS operators which will not benefit from the mutual recognition system guaranteed through the implementation of an EU regulation. This will also increase implementation costs as the UAS operators will need to equip their UAS with different on-board capabilities to be able to operate in different U-space airspaces across the EU. Ultimately, this may have an impact on safety. It is considered that without the development and implementation of U-space services and U-space airspace, the UAS service market will not be able to achieve its full potential as today’s UAS operational and flight authorisations are quite difficult to obtain for more complex UAS operations. 3.3. What we want to achieve — objectives As stated in Article 2 of the proposed regulation, the objectives this Regulation are to: (a) support safe, secure and environmentally friendly operations of aircraft in the U-space airspace while respecting the privacy of European citizens; (b) maintain the current safety levels for manned aviation; (c) create the conditions for an internal market for U-space services; and (d) ensure fair, affordable and efficient access to the U-space airspace to all airspace users. To support the safe increase of different type of UAS operations which will become more complex as they will be using aircraft with a higher degree of automation, there is a need to implement U-space. U-space aims to provide services to UAS operators to support their operations in volumes of airspace designated as U-space by Member States. In addition to the general objectives above, which are derived from the Basic Regulation objectives, EASA aims to support the European Commission in achieving the goals of the EU policies in relation to transport as well as that of creating a strong and competitive UAS service market. TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 31 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 3. Impact assessment (IA) A further objective is to harmonise as early as possible the implementation of U-space across the EU. As regards the specific objectives of the U-space services, they are to: — prevent collision between UAS and between UAS and manned aviation; — expedite and maintain an orderly flow of UAS; — provide advice and information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of UAS flights; — notify appropriate organisations regarding emergency or abnormal situations with the UAS which may endanger people and goods on the ground or manned aviation; and — ensure that environmental, security and privacy requirements are met. Not every service contributes to meeting all the objectives but the provision of all U-space service does. Note: — The implementation of U-space should also contribute to supporting the actions to be implemented in relation to unauthorised UAS (counter-UAS measures for which EASA has also developed an C-UAS action plan). — Together with the implementation of the already existing regulations, it could contribute to supporting the national security measures against potential misuse of UAS. 3.4. How it could be achieved — options 3.4.1. Baseline Option — Option 0 ‘No policy change at EU level. U-space implementation is done at national level’ This option is the ‘do nothing Option’ and therefore leaves the implementation of U-space to the Member States. There is no development of a U-space framework at EU level. 3.4.2. Option 1 ‘Develop a harmonised framework for the establishment of U-space across Europe’- This option foresees the development and implementation of a European regulatory framework for U-space across the EU. Table 1: Selected policy options Option No Short title Description 0 Option 0 No policy change at EU level. U-space implementation is done at national level. 1 Option 1 Develop a harmonised framework for the establishment of U- space across Europe. 3.5. What are the impacts 3.5.1. Methodology applied The methodology applied for this IA is the multi-criteria analysis (MCA) which allows comparing the two options by scoring them against a set of criteria. TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 32 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 3. Impact assessment (IA) MCA covers a wide range of techniques that aim to combine a range of positive and negative impacts into a single framework to allow easier comparison of scenarios. The MCA key steps generally include the following: (a) establishing the criteria to be used to compare the two options (these criteria must be measurable, at least in qualitative terms); and (b) scoring how well each option meets the criteria — the scoring needs to be relative to the baseline scenario. The criteria used to compare the two options were derived from the Basic Regulation, the objectives of the proposed Regulation and the maturity of U-space as a whole. As shown in detail in the following table, the scoring of the impacts uses a scale of -3 to +3 to indicate the negative and positive impacts of each option (i.e. from ‘low’ to ‘high’ negative/positive impacts), with also a ‘no impact’ (0) score possible. This scale has been chosen as there is no sufficient data to use more granular scores. Negative impact Score Positive impact Score -3 High negative impact +3 High positive impact -2 Medium negative impact +2 Medium positive impact -1 Low negative impact +1 Low positive impact 0 Neutral/insignificant 0 Neutral/insignificant 3.5.2. Assumptions made for the assessment of the impact The assumptions for the assessment of the impacts made below are the following: (a) U-space airspace is not everywhere but it is designated mainly where needed: mainly in low level airspace (below 500 ft outside the urban airspace, below the minimum height at the city within urban environment and around airports). (b) Option 0 could also mean that the ANSPs manage UAS traffic and provide U-space services themselves or the Member States decide not to implement U-space. Therefore, the situation remains as it is today but with adding the building blocks already foreseen in the regulation for UAS operations in the ‘open’ and ‘specific’ categories. (c) The assessment does not take credit for the potential availability of detect and avoid or sense and avoid capabilities of the UAS as the standards based on which general credit can be taken for all airspace classes are not yet available — in particular for low-level airspace. (d) The U-space services considered in this assessment are the ones included in the draft proposal. If additional services are considered necessary to support the U-space airspace implementation by the Member States, they cannot be included in the assessment as there is no harmonised description of them and how they should contribute to achieving the safety objectives. 3.5.3. Safety impact As explained in Section 3.2.1, there is no consolidated safety data showing that the number of UAS- manned aircraft encounters and UAS incursions in areas such as aerodromes are increasing within the TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 33 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 3. Impact assessment (IA) European airspace. With the implementation of the European Regulation for UAS operations in the ‘open’ and ‘specific’ categories, the requirements aim to mitigate the air and ground risks posed by UAS. For UAS operations under the ‘open’ category, there are very clear requirements (e.g. UAS operators’ responsibilities, maximum height of 120 m, geo-awareness system and systems of geographical zones for Member States in case they wish to use them). For UAS operations under the ‘specific’ category, the operators need to perform a SORA to properly mitigate air and ground risks. As the number of UAS operations increases within the European airspace, these requirements need to be complemented with the UTM approach to be able to maintain safety and efficiency. Option 0 The option of no policy change leaves the implementation of U-space to the Member States should they consider it necessary to manage the amount of actual UAS traffic in their airspace. The Member States could also decide that the management of the UAS traffic is done by the ANSPs. As EASA does not have a complete list of actions foreseen by Member States, the assessment is done only on the basis of an evaluation of the available options. The following assessment is made in a general manner for each of three conflict management pillars defined in ICAO Doc 9854: (a) Strategic mitigation: For the strategic mitigation layer, Member States may decide to use the possibility given in Article 15 ‘Operational conditions for UAS geographical zones’ of Regulation (EU) 2019/947 and use tools/applications to clearly indicate to UAS operators where they can fly or not and under which conditions. For manned aircraft, Member States may decide to make this information available in the aeronautical information publication (AIP) or through notices to airmen (NOTAMs). The Member States may use restricted areas, dangerous areas, or (temporary) segregated areas or other tools available to enable UAS operations. When considering the early implementation of the U-space airspace and when considering the first UAS operations which will take place mainly within the ‘open’ and ‘specific’ categories, this layer is going to be the most effective for conflict management as manned aviation flies in very low- level airspace mainly in the case of emergency or to conduct a specialised operation under specific approval (e.g. helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS), search & rescue (S&R) or other specialised operations). (b) Separation provision: Depending on the tool used for the strategic mitigation, the Member States may ensure separation of UAS traffic by segregation of airspace or using time as the separation provision means depending on their assessment. When the UAS traffic is within an airport environment, Member States may decide to use the same separation provisions that are available for manned aircraft. However, UAS are not able to comply with the rules applicable to VFR traffic and unless they are equipped and certified as IFR traffic, there is no possibility for them to comply with IFR rules. Each Member State will thus need to define what rules and procedures will be applicable in each case. (c) Collision avoidance: UAS traffic cannot see and avoid, as there is no standardised DAA system for which credit can be taken for all airspace classes, it is difficult in general to claim the availability of this layer. In addition, if there will be sufficient confidence that the whole airspace traffic is cooperative and the traffic information could be made available to UAS operators, this could facilitate the compliance of the UAS operators with their responsibilities of ultimately TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 34 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 3. Impact assessment (IA) avoiding collision. EASA does not have sufficient information on how Member States will mitigate this layer. This general assessment is done on the basis of known tools available to Member States and not knowing which U-space services the Member States will implement and how they will implement U- space. The main drawback of this option is that the requirements and technical solutions will vary from Member State to Member State. This could potentially have a negative safety impact as there will be no clear rules and procedures applicable to all UAS operators and all airspace users across the EU. This will be the case in particular for those UAS operators and U-space services providers wishing to operate in more than one Member States. Therefore, the score given to this option is -1. Option 1 This option foresees the implementation of the U-space airspace by the Member States in areas where it is needed for the management of UAS traffic and the implementation of it as foreseen by the proposed regulation, for controlled and uncontrolled airspaces. In addition, when U-space airspace is implemented, U-space services are provided as described in the proposed regulation. Member States might use additional U-space services if they consider them necessary for the specific U-space airspace implementation. The use of additional U-space services is not considered in this assessment as they are not known, neither commonly agreed definitions or specifications of them exist. As for Option 0, the following assessment is made in a general manner for each of three conflict management pillars defined in ICAO Doc 9854: (a) Strategic mitigation: This mitigation layer is foreseen with the designation of the U-space airspace as stipulated in Αrticle 4 of the proposed regulation. Member States may establish U- space airspace after a risk assessment is performed for the airspace. The tool used for establishing this U-space airspace can be restricted airspace or temporary segregated airspace. But they can also use other tools such as dangerous areas (e.g. in uncontrolled airspace). It can be a temporary or permanent airspace structure depending on the traffic density or complexity. In controlled airspace, it is foreseen that U-space airspace is established as a temporary segregated airspace and the management of it is performed by the responsible ANSP. When the airspace is established as foreseen in the proposed regulation, in very low-level airspace, near airports or within urban airspace, there is a natural segregation (and therefore separation) with manned traffic, and the U-space will only be deactivated for UAS operations when a manned aircraft would need to cross the U-space airspace. Therefore, there is segregation between manned and UAS operations. When U-space is established in uncontrolled airspace or in airspace class E for uncontrolled traffic (i.e. VFR), the U-space airspace could be established as restricted airspace and this information shall be made available to manned aircraft. In this case, when for whatever reason manned aircraft would need to cross U-space airspace, they would need to make their position available to USSPs at regular intervals. The USSPs would use this information to create the necessary geo-fencing or geo-awareness information for the UAS traffic to avoid collision. This information can be used by the USSPs to provide traffic information to UAS. For UAS-UAS encounters, so far the regulation foresees that when U-space airspace is established, all UAS operators, except those exempted from the regulation, need to comply with the required U-space services. TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 35 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 3. Impact assessment (IA) (b) Separation provision: This mitigation layer is ensured in different ways in controlled airspace and in uncontrolled airspace. When U-space airspace is in controlled airspace, this layer is ensured by segregation between manned and UAS traffic as they will not fly in the same airspace volume at the same time. If manned aircraft need to cross U-space airspace, this becomes unavailable for UAS traffic. The separation between UAS within U-space airspace is ensured with the use of services such as traffic information and through the management of flight authorisations to deconflict the traffic before the flight is initiated. When the U-space airspace is established within uncontrolled airspace or in the case of uncontrolled VFR traffic, when the U-space airspace is established within class E airspace, the separation provision is ensured by the manned traffic providing its position at regular intervals to the USSP and by the USSPs providing traffic information to UAS traffic or deconflicting the traffic through the flight authorisations. To support appropriate mitigation within this layer, additional U-space services such as tracking service or conformance monitoring can be used when the traffic and traffic complexity require so. This way of mitigating the risk within this layer works when the U-space is established in the very low-level airspace, around airports or within the airspace below minimum heights within urban environment. When the U-space is to be established at higher heights/levels or outside these use cases or when the traffic density or complexity of UAS traffic is increased, the regulation will need to be amended to require additional U-space services (e.g. tactical deconfliction service). (c) Collision avoidance: In the absence of DAA systems based on which standards can be credited for all airspace classes, this layer remains the most difficult to mitigate as UAS traffic cannot see and avoid other traffic and manned traffic is also unable to see and avoid small/medium-sized UAS. This is why the assessment and the proposed regulation relies mainly on stronger strategic and separation mitigation layers rather than on collision avoidance. That is the reason why as far as it is possible temporary segregation should be used to manage U-space airspace and cooperative measures should be applied within U-space airspace to manage UAS-manned traffic and UAS-UAS traffic separation. This together with the assumption that U-space airspace will be mainly implemented in very low-level airspace, around airports or in airspace within urban environment, as well as the expected low/medium UAS traffic density in the near future, makes it possible to do the following assessment. The way for UAS operators to comply with their responsibilities under SERA.3201 is to ensure that they are provided with the necessary traffic information to be able to avoid collisions. For this reason, it is required that manned aircraft make their position available to the USSPs at regular intervals when they fly within U- space airspace in uncontrolled airspace or when they fly as uncontrolled traffic (VFR in class E). When manned aircraft are provided with ATS/ATC services by ANSPs, it is expected that traffic information is shared between USSPs and ANSPs (through CIS or directly). This general qualitative assessment is done on the basis of the assumptions taken being valid and the regulation being implemented as foreseen. In addition, the UAS traffic and traffic complexity foreseen is such that the proposed approach is able to safely manage the traffic. When these assumptions are not correct, then the assessment would need to be reviewed. On the basis of the assessment made and on the basis of the information made available to EASA about the implementation foreseen by Member States within Option 0, EASA concludes that Option 1 will provide for a higher positive safety impact as the three conflict management pillars of ICAO are met in a harmonised way across the EU and therefore, this should avoid confusion from the UAS TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 36 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 3. Impact assessment (IA) operators and manned aviation traffic and should serve as a basis for more complex operations and amendment of the regulation with more advanced U-space services once they are mature. Compared to option 0, the score for this option is then +1. 3.5.4. Economic impact Option 0 UAS operators that want to operate in the U-space would be provided with a number of U-space services. The type and number of U-space services will be determined by the competent authorities. The latter could require an extensive range of U-space services to be provided with and could even decide that the services vary from one U-space airspace to another (in the same Member State). Therefore, UAS operators may need to engage a lot of human and financial resources to comply with different technical or operational requirements in the same U-space airspace to receive the necessary U-space services. Furthermore, in the case UAS operators wish to provide services in another Member State, they will have to adapt their operational procedures and capabilities to be able to safely operate in the other national U-space airspace(s). Since there might not be equivalent implementation between the Member States, UAS operators might need to invest in the training and operations qualification of their pilots. The cost of operating in different Member States may be high due to the lack of harmonisation of U-space services implementation which implies different training, use of different application software and interfaces, and different authorisation regime. National implementation of the U-space will have a negative economic impact on USSPs. In general, USSPs will have to bear the most significant investment in terms of infrastructure and performance capabilities. The cost to launch and maintain their activities includes the operation and maintenance of specific infrastructure and equipment that they will need in order to provide services in the U-space. Because the U-space services will be provided only at national level, such service provision could create fragmentation with different levels of service and performance in the EU, which will bring most likely additional cost for them but also to the overall aviation network. Similarly to USSPs, ATM/ANS providers will have to develop and maintain some infrastructure, system and other ancillary services to be competitive. They will need to establish certain procedures for interacting and exchanging data with the USSPs. Such procedures and exchange most likely will be supported by automated tools which are currently not available. Some extra ATCO/FISO training may be needed. For the authorities, the initial implementation of the U-space airspace may have a high cost due to the need for airspace redesign and the necessity to provide for the accuracy of aeronautical data used for airspace structures definition. Indeed, high-accuracy data origination will inevitably bring additional cost. In addition, the role of the (national and local) authorities will be primarily to ensure that the applicable rules are complied with by all U-space participants. In addition to their certification and oversight duties for traditional aviation operations, the authorities will have to also act as the certification authority for all USSPs. The same applies for their oversight responsibilities where they will need to ensure that the U-space framework they have established (airspace, overall systems they have approved) can be properly checked. In some Member States, federal and local authorities will also have to ensure the appropriate enforcement (police) measures and foresee the necessary human resources and financial expenses to be able to fulfil their duties. Also, given the rapid technological developments, each Member State will need to maintain separately their own national legislation. TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 37 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 3. Impact assessment (IA) Such maintenance will most likely be needed much more frequently than in the other aviation domains, which will bring an overall cost and burden for each of the competent authorities. However, if the volumes of airspace that are designated U-space airspace are a few, the economic impact on authorities may be slightly less than if there are multiple designated U-space airspaces. Also, the national implementation of U-space may not consider a centralised CIS provider and therefore the impact would be lower because the tasks of the authorities referred to above will be limited. Even though there are initial implementation costs to be borne by the affected stakeholders, they would benefit from the opening of the various national U-space service markets, allowing more complex UAS operations, even if the cost of such a national approach would limit those benefits. In conclusion, depending on the level of national implementation of U-space in each Member State, the economic impact will vary. Nevertheless, this option would only, overall, enable limited business growth and would maintain restricted individual UAS service markets, each depending on national decisions. Therefore, the score given to this option is 0. Option 1 For UAS operators, the economic impact is positive as even though they will be need to pay for the provision of U-space services, they will benefit from operating according to a clear European regulatory framework. Said framework will facilitate their business and open the market for the provision of UAS services in a European-wide harmonised way. As the U-space will provide the environment where operations can be conducted in a safe manner, this has a positive impact on their business capacity. Efficient routes provided by the service providers can support their operations in a cost-effective manner. This will allow them to increase their operations. Requirements for equipment and performance in the U-space airspace will bring some cost in the short term, but a harmonised approach will provide benefits in the long term, especially with regard to mobility and cross-border services. In addition, the proposed regulation foresees the inclusion of the ‘open’ category except for toys, UAS within subcategory A1 and unmanned aircraft operated under model aircraft clubs and associations. This option may have a potential negative economic impact on the UAS operators under the ‘open category’ as in addition to the capability requirements as per Regulation (EU) 2019/945, they will need to have a contract with a USSP and receive a flight authorisation before operating in the U-space airspace. Harmonised approval/certification for USSPs will enable application of the free market principles for the operators when selecting their service provider and may, therefore, reduce the cost of operations. Under this option, the U-space regulatory framework requires that at least four U-space services are provided to UAS operators and gives the possibility for UAS operators to ask for more when available. In addition, it needs to be considered that there is a need to implement the minimum necessary infrastructure to support provision of U-space services and this will have an initial cost for the USSPs that may be recovered in the long term when U-space services are actually provided. U-space services will be provided in a harmonised manner at EU level as some common means to ensure interoperability and connectivity will be required. All these elements will inevitably create business opportunities for service providers and therefore have a positive financial impact. ATM/ANS providers are currently providing services within a clear ATM/ANS (service provision) regulatory framework. In accordance with the proposed regulation, when they are providing the CIS, TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 38 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 3. Impact assessment (IA) they will not be allowed to provide U-space services in that U-space airspace. This requirement prevents them from participating in certain U-space airspaces and thus restricts potential business activities. Although this requirement seems necessary to ensure that there is no conflict of interest when the common information is made available to the different USSPs, this option does not have a positive economic impact on ATM/ANS providers in case they want to act both as a CIS provider and a USSP in the same U-space airspace. However, the proposed regulation opens a new possibility for ANSPs to act as a U-space services provider other than ATM/ANS provider in all other U-space airspaces. As mentioned in Option 0, for the authorities, the initial implementation of the U-space airspace may have a high cost due to the need for airspace redesign, accuracy of aeronautical data used for airspace structures definition, etc. However, a harmonised approach and joint Member States efforts in this regard may bring cost reductions compared to Option 0. If additional personnel for the oversight and approval/certificate of the USSPs will be needed as described in Option 0, the mutual recognition, based on the harmonised approach will open the market and bring long-term benefits, compared to Option 0. This option overall enables business growth and creates a harmonised UAS services market with a positive economic impact on most of the affected stakeholders. All in all, when evaluating the potential negative and positive economic impact, the score given to this Option is +2. 3.5.5. Environmental impact and impact on privacy Today, people associate UAS with negative impact on the environment and citizens’ privacy. The increase in the number of unmanned aircraft operating at low-level altitude will inevitably increase the nuisance and interference with the use and enjoyment of public or private property. This may be regarded as intrusive because UAS are expected to increase annoyance, discomfort, mental and emotional distress, and as a nuisance because of aircraft noise and visual pollution. Option 0 This option allows each national authority to decide on the approach to be taken to protect their citizens from environmental constraints. In that case, each Member State will respond to such environmental concern according to its own national/local considerations. It may be argued that national protection of citizens may be more effective and efficient at national level than harmonised at EU level. However, external factors or other more urgent national considerations may affect the environmental actions/priorities of the authorities and therefore the impact would be highly negative for the citizens. This has already happened in the traditional aviation sector, where, in some Member States, some political decisions were made against environmental considerations. Also, in order to ensure fair and equal treatment of EU citizens, national solutions are not considered to be the most viable and sustainable ones. Therefore, this option is considered to be neutral in terms of benefits/drawbacks for EU citizens when thousands of UAS will be flying at low altitude. Therefore, the score given is 0. Option 1 This option requires that environmental issues are tackled at EU level to ensure that a minimum protection of the citizens is ensured. The regulatory framework proposes a set of mandatory U-space services. These services should ensure, as much as possible, that environmental requirements are TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 39 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 3. Impact assessment (IA) met. Such provision of U-space services may facilitate the definition of areas with respect to acceptable noise levels in time and space and which can support foreseen planning of flights through these areas (e.g. geo-fencing services to protect privacy as well as environmentally sensitive areas such as bird protection zones, etc.). The U-space services may also have an impact on defined zones with respect to noise sensitivity as well as allowed noise levels in each zone and may support flight route planning in order to minimise the noise impact on surrounding populated areas. The establishment of the U-space can benefit people on the ground who would be on the flight route of the unmanned aircraft and who could possibly suffer from the aircraft noise and/or visual pollution. Indeed, the operator will know which zones to avoid during flight planning and will get support and advisories from the USSPs in order to minimise the noise impact on the surrounding populated areas. This option may be dependent on the environmental strategy of the appropriate authorities in a given area. Furthermore, all the necessary information that is required to be exchanged between the U-space participants should facilitate the protection of the EU citizens against noise, and privacy issues. Therefore, it is foreseen that the establishment of a harmonised U-space across the EU contributes to the setting of a minimum level of environmental protection that can be complemented by national measures as well, if needed. The score given to this option is +1. 3.5.6. Security impact While recognising their many useful purposes, UAS in the hands of malicious actors also pose a security threat to public spaces, critical infrastructure (not least aircraft and airports), sensitive sites (e.g. prisons, police facilities, military installations), and both high-profile and private persons. Recent incidents involving UAS have led to severe traffic disruptions at European airports and have highlighted potential risks to passengers and aviation staff. The challenges in protecting such spaces, sites and people are only likely to grow as UAS become more sophisticated, accessible and affordable. In particular, UAS operations in and around airports and other critical infrastructures must comply with strict security requirements in order to avoid any gaps and implement recognised solutions. Option 0 Under this option, national authorities foresee security measures to deal with potential security threats. These authorities will manage security according to the experience related to dangerous events that occurred in their Member State and will therefore take the appropriate measures in order to ensure that such events do not occur anymore. When doing so, it has often been demonstrated (e.g. intrusion of UAS near airports) that the necessary measures were effectively taken to mitigate the security risks. Member States are not waiting for the implementation of the U-space to develop security policies/measures related to drone activities in their territory. However, the implementation of U- space can provide the necessary means to efficiently manage security threats. Indeed, various U-space services required by the national authorities to be provided as well as the information to be exchanged with regard to UAS operations will have a positive impact on the overall security mitigation policy. This option has therefore a positive impact on security related measures. Therefore, the score given to this option is +1. TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 40 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 3. Impact assessment (IA) Option 1 Similarly to Option 0, the implementation of the U-space regulated at EU level has a positive impact on security. Indeed, all the elements described in Option 0 apply in this case. But furthermore, under this option, the obligation to exchange data, to coordinate with all the participants in the U-space and the requirement for the CIS provider to put in place cybersecurity protection measures (determined by EASA) will enhance the aviation security approach and reinforce the capability of the U-space to protect its system across the EU. As the threat posed by UAS is likely to continue to grow as they become more widely available, more affordable and more capable, the implementation of the U-space will be complemented with the upcoming regulatory proposal on the ‘Management of information security risks’20 proposed by EASA. This rulemaking activity is proposing a set of rules in the aviation security domain to ensure that the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information being stored, transmitted or processed through the aeronautical information systems are not compromised. This will contribute to an efficient U-space implementation and ensure that all the information managed by the CIS provider(s) is protected from cyberattacks and their consequences. Furthermore, the current existing requirements for registration, remote identification and geo-awareness functionality will be applicable as from June 2020. These measures will undoubtedly prevent some types of disruptive drone usage, and the development of U-space at EU level should enhance the preparedness and resilience of the aviation sector generally and airports in particular. Therefore, the score given to this option is +2. 3.5.7. Social impact The social impacts analysed in this section are those related to mobility and employment. Under both options, as the U-space will be the enabler for the development of new services and innovative UAS services, all citizens will benefit from this opportunity as they will be able to access certain services that were probably not possible before the U-space (e.g. easier delivery of services in remote areas). This has a positive impact on equal opportunities. Option 0 With regard to mobility, a national U-space implementation would result in a negative social impact caused by the fact that each Member State will most likely develop highly customised ‘system architecture’ for the U-space services and this will limit the mobility of UAS operators and USSPs if they want to provide services in another Member State. As they can determine the type and number of U-space services to be provided for each U-space airspace(s), free movement of business activities could be limited within a Member State. Therefore, the implementation of U-space at national level would neither encourage competitive and cost-effective service provision at all times neither support the business models of UAS operations. Furthermore, this will not guarantee equitable and fair access to services for EU citizens. Whereas UAS operators will operate and develop business according to national U-space regulations, the growth of the UAS operations demand would affect the management of UAS operations, including mobility. The impact on employment is closely linked to mobility. If the UAS operators and USSPs are limited in the way they can provide services, this could eventually have a low negative impact on their business 20 NPA 2019-07 on ‘Management of information security risks’, 30 May 2019. TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 41 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 3. Impact assessment (IA) development and thus potentially on the employment market. Therefore, for this option, the score given is -1. Option 1 This option establishes a framework for Europe and therefore facilitates operations in general, as it will provide the same criteria and requirements across Europe, with same-level obligations. This facilitates the movement of persons and services across the EU. UAS operators will benefit from the various services that will be provided, not only in the U-space where they are operating but they may also reach for services in other U-space airspaces of other Member States where service offers are equally or more attractive. The fact that a U-space framework is in place in one Member State may facilitate the usage of U-space services in another. USSPs would benefit from the EU regulatory framework as they will have the opportunity to provide services in another Member State. Although the mobility of persons is less relevant for USSPs (because they can offer services across the EU from one single location), the possibility for personnel of these USSPs to establish themselves in another Member State exists and will be facilitated by the fact the European U-space rules will allow them to provide the minimum set of (mandatory) services and thus create an easy setting-up of their business. In a regulated environment in U-space, citizens may thus benefit from the full potential range of services that may be provided. Through the provision of new U-space services, the proposal would ensure fair access of UAS operators to the airspace in a cost-effective manner. Therefore, the regulatory framework would open up a UAS services market because the U-space would enable fair, flexible and open access to the airspace. This framework would encourage UAS operators to develop their activities and also be an incentive for those who would like to start business in the UAS area. As the U-space is expected to create a safe environment that will also ensure privacy and environmental protection, UAS operators and USSPs will be able to develop new and sustainable business models, increase employment and contribute to the growth of the UAS market. Therefore, the establishment of U-space will have a positive impact on employment and labour market and the overall score given is +2. 3.5.8. Impact on General Aviation General Aviation (GA) in the EU involves a wide spectrum of aircraft ranging from gliders to complex business jet operations. It constitutes an important part of the EU aeronautical industry and also an important part of the airspace users that may typically share airspace with the first set of UAS operations. As UAS cannot see and avoid and cannot apply other rules foreseen within SERA to prevent collisions such as VFR or IFR rules, UAS operations raise a safety concern which is mid-air collisions with manned traffic in particular outside controlled airspace which is the airspace typically used by GA traffic. A mid- air collision could happen if the UAS pilot cannot see and avoid manned aircraft in time and vice versa. Moreover, GA pilots cannot always see typical UAS traffic in a timely manner and avoid them with the means available today. The ‘see and avoid’ principle commonly used by VFR traffic and GA pilots within uncontrolled airspace cannot provide an acceptable level of safety if UAS traffic performing BVLOS operations flies in the same volume of airspace without any restrictions. The same applies to VFR traffic in airspace class E. TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 42 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 3. Impact assessment (IA) With the proposed regulation and considering the lack of DAA systems available for UAS for all airspace classes, it is considered necessary that GA traffic that would need to cross U-space airspace established within uncontrolled airspace or where uncontrolled traffic takes place, the manned traffic is requested to make their position available to the USSPs at regular intervals. It is important to highlight that U-space airspace is not restricted for manned aviation/GA, but when it is established outside controlled airspace or for uncontrolled traffic, there is a new obligation for the manned aircraft to provide its position to the USSP in order to allow the latter to provide traffic information to the UAS traffic and therefore support proper conflict resolution. While it is is considered to be a new obligation for manned aviation, mainly GA, rotorcraft performing HEMS operations or other type of operations within very low-level airspace or military/State aircraft operations, this impact, mainly economic, is considered to be low for GA traffic (and medium for other airspace users such as affected rotorcraft operators and military/State operators) as it is not expected that GA would fly below 500 ft (VLL), except for take-off or landing in the vicinity of an airport. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that certain operations still may occur in VLL for reasons of emergency/contingency (e.g. engine failures) or in the case of gliders and balloons, which are heavily dependent on the wind and cannot always control their path and intent. In all these cases, it is important to evaluate how their position can be made available to the relevant USSPs. Today, the risk of mid-air-collisions between GA traffic is dealt with by the European GA community and there are more and more low-cost conspicuity devices being voluntarily implemented by them (e.g. FLARM, Pilot Aware and low-cost low-power ADS-B out transmitters). EASA has launched an initiative in the context of its GA roadmap to address this identified safety risk and the Best Intervention Strategy (BIS) on Airborne Collision Risk that includes a set of proposed actions, was sent for consultation with the EASA ABs in 2019. EASA will decide on the actions proposed in the BIS to address this safety issue after reviewing the comments received. EASA’s intention is to combine the two initiatives and explore how the aggregation of multiple technologies and initiatives can serve to also improve the already existing safety levels for the GA community and to allow UAS operations at least as foreseen with the proposed regulation. Therefore, the implementation of U-space airspace as foreseen in the proposed regulation and the provision of the U-space services could also have a positive safety impact on GA in general. Option 0 This option leaves the implementation of U-space to Member States and EASA does not have sufficient data to assess the impact of the individual implementation of the Member States on GA traffic. EASA has been made aware that in many cases to allow safe UAS operations, in particular BVLOS operations, the Member States have segregated the airspace where the UAS operations take place for obvious safety reasons. This approach has the highest negative impact on GA traffic as they will have more complex airspace structures to respect when preparing their flights. This does not mean that all Member States will use this approach to allow UAS operations. However, Option 0 entails no harmonised implementation of tools and procedures for U-space and therefore much more uncertainty for the GA traffic when flying across the European airspace, including the need to adapt to different local procedures and airspace structures. This option has therefore the highest negative impact on GA. Therefore, the score given to this option -2. TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 43 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 3. Impact assessment (IA) Option 1 Although the GA aircraft will be required to provide their position to the USSPs at regular intervals when flying within the U-space airspace which is designated in uncontrolled airspace or when they fly as uncontrolled traffic within the U-space airspace, the impact is limited to certain circumstances (flying in very low-level airspace, around airports or within urban environment). In addition, EASA intends to use the available conspicuity devices and initiatives to adapt them to fulfil this obligation and therefore also support the overall safety improvement of GA. This option foresees a harmonised implementation of the U-space airspace and services across the EU and considering the foreseen implementation, it is anticipated that the impact on GA is medium negative. The score given to this option is -1. 3.6. Conclusion 3.6.1. Comparison of options Based on the previous sections, a table is provided to compare and summarise the impacts per option and per criteria. Reminder: Each impact criterion for each option is given a score between -3/+ and +3 scale. Option 0 Option 1 Safety impact -1 +1 Economic impact 0 +2 Environmental impact and 0 +1 impact on privacy Security impact +1 +2 Social impact -1 +2 Impact on GA -2 -1 Total -3 +7 The preferred option, considering all impacts, is Option 1 — Develop a harmonised framework for the establishment of U-space across Europe. Compared to Option 0 under which the implementation of the U-space is made at national level, a clear common European approach to manage unmanned traffic in the U-space airspace(s) will create a safe environment. By defining a first set of rules so that all the participants in the U-space know what they have to do, this option will promote a minimum level playing field across the EU as well as an efficient and equitable airspace access for all aircraft operators. 3.7. Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring is a continuous and systematic process of data collection and analysis about the implementation/application of a rule/activity. It generates factual information for future possible evaluations and impact assessments. It also helps to identify actual implementation problems and TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 44 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 3. Impact assessment (IA) support regular updates of the regulatory framework e.g. by adding additional U-space services when mature. A proposal on indicators to check is presented below: What to monitor How to monitor Who should How often to monitor monitor Occurrences, incidents European Coordination EASA/NAA On a recurrent basis, and accidents involving Centre for Accident and e.g. once a year UAS operation within the Incident Reporting Systems U-space airspace (ECCAIRS) U-space services Through surveys, implemented by implementation support Member States in actions, UAS addition to those implementation network, required by the EASA’s ABs and regulation standardisation inspections How U-space airspace is established and where it is established by Member States across EU TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 45 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 4. Proposed actions to support implementation 4. Proposed actions to support implementation — Focused communication in AB meetings (MAB/SAB/TeB/TEC/COM) — UAS implementation network — Provision of clarifications in electronic communication tools EASA–NAAs (EASA surveys or other) — Detailed explanation with clarifications on the EASA website — Dedicated thematic workshops/sessions at EASA — Series of thematic events organised on the regional principle — Combination of the above-selected means Cologne, 13 March 2020 Patrick KY Executive Director TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 46 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 5. References 5. References 5.1. Affected regulations — Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 of 1 March 2017 laying down common requirements for providers of air traffic management/air navigation services and other air traffic management network functions and their oversight, repealing Regulation (EC) No 482/2008, Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1034/2011, (EU) No 1035/2011 and (EU) 2016/1377 and amending Regulation (EU) No 677/2011 (OJ L 62, 8.3.2017) 5.2. Related regulations — Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 of 24 May 2019 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft (OJ L 152, 11.6.2019) — Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 of 12 March 2019 on unmanned aircraft systems and on third-country operators of unmanned aircraft systems (OJ L 152, 11.6.2019) 5.3. Related decisions — n/a 5.4. Other reference documents — n/a TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 47 of 48 An agency of the European Union  European Union Aviation Safety Agency Opinion No 01/2020 5. Related documents 6. Related documents Appendix to Opinion No 01/2020 (stand-alone document) TE.RPRO.00036-009 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 48 of 48 An agency of the European Union Annex to ED Decision 2020/xxx/R Draft acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to Opinion No 01/2020 on a high-level regulatory framework for the U-space Issue 1 XX Month 20201 1 For the date of entry into force of this Issue, kindly refer to Decision 20xx/0xx/R in the Official Publication of EASA.  Draft acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to Opinion No 01/2020 on a high-level regulatory framework for the U-space GM1 to Article 1 Subject matter and scope APPLICABILITY The subject matter of the regulation refers to the categories of persons or organisations to which the rules applies. It also exonerates some UAS operations from the application of the rules. The rules shall not apply to drones that are either toys, model aircraft within clubs and associations that receive an authorisation in accordance with Article 16 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947or limited in their weight and speed which are the UAS within the open category A1. It is considered that such types of drones can be frequently used for recreational purposes by anyone and therefore there should be exempted from the application of this Regulation. GM1 to Article 2 Objectives SAFETY AND SOCIETAL, OPEN MARKET CONSIDERATIONS This article includes a list of the objectives that this regulation is aiming to meet. Beyond the safety aspects which is the primary objective for EASA with this regulation, this regulation is considered a key enabler in opening the drones service market by allowing the conduct of more complex operations in a safe manner and granting fair access to certain volumes of airspace which are designated as U- space airspace. Moreover, the opening of a competitive market creates jobs and fosters positive economic growth. Because of the impact that drones have on society today, this regulation needs to take into consideration the concerns of the citizens in terms of security, environment and privacy. GM1 to Article 3 Definitions GENERAL This article specifies only those terms that are necessary to understand the provisions of the regulation. As this regulation is closely linked to the two existing regulations on drones (Regulations (EU) 2019/945 and 2019/947), the definitions included in those regulations are considered also to apply to this regulation and are not repeated here. Well-established terms are not included either. GM1 to Article 4 Designation of U-space airspace RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE U-SPACE AIRSPACE This article is the ‘starting point’ for the management of air traffic in the U-space airspace, and therefore it is important to define the roles and responsibilities of all organisations that are involved in the U-space airspace. The Member States have full authority on the designation of the U-space airspace, and therefore have the power to decide how their airspace is designed, accessed, restricted, etc. As the U-space airspace can be established in either controlled or uncontrolled airspace, there is a need to take into account that there is already an organisation being designated to provide ATS services on an exclusive basis Page 2 of 17 Annex to ED Decision 20xx/xxx/R  Draft acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to Opinion No 01/2020 on a high-level regulatory framework for the U-space based on the Single European Sky (SES) regulation1 and ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs). Therefore, air traffic services (ATS) providers are designated to provide air traffic control (ATC) services in controlled airspace and flight information services (FIS) providers are providing FIS and alerting services in many parts of uncontrolled airspace. When designating U-space airspace and integrating USSPs to provide U-space services to UAS within controlled and uncontrolled airspace, the already established principles need to be considered and respected. Therefore, this article clarifies who is responsible for what kind of operators and how they should ensure their respective obligations. Finally, this article defines the specific coordination procedures between ANSPs and USSPs. The principle is that ANSPs provide air navigation services (ANS) to manned aircraft while USSPs provide U-space services to UAS operators. Both ANSPs and USSPs are certified to provide their respective services in a safe, secure and continuous manner. Within controlled airspace, U-space airspace is designated by the Member States and is dynamically managed by the ANSP. The safety of operations is guaranteed by the fact that manned and unmanned traffic will not mix with each other as they are dynamically segregated and ANS and U-space services are not provided at the same time in the same volume of airspace. In uncontrolled airspace, the airspace remains uncontrolled for manned aircraft. But when the Member States designate a volume of airspace as U-space airspace, there is a restriction (therefore it could be established as a restricted area): for UAS operators, to use U-space services to fly in that airspace; and for manned aircraft operators, to make available their position at regular intervals to the USSPs. The latter can provide manned traffic information to unmanned aircraft or can geo-fence the unmanned traffic around the manned traffic. The manned aircraft operator will also be informed about the U-space airspace and the unmanned traffic either by the FIS provider or by the USSP, depending on the specific implementation. EASA considers that U- space and its services can bring added value in terms of safety also to the manned aircraft operations flying in uncontrolled airspace as there will be more sharing of traffic information between manned and unmanned aircraft and also between manned aircraft operations themselves with the use of more affordable conspicuity devices and by sharing existing ground infrastructure. Of course, the way to ensure that there is no conflict between both operations is that they mutually share the relevant information (position and possible trajectories and for UAS also planning, etc.). This article also underlines which U-space services are mandatory in the U-space airspace. Based on the assessment conducted by EASA of existing U-space services and their maturity, the following U- space services are considered necessary and mandatory to ensure safe and efficient operations in each U-space airspace implementation: network identification, geo-awareness, traffic information and UAS flight authorisation. In addition, Member States may decide that additional U-space services are needed to support safe and efficient UAS operations in specific volumes of U-space airspace implementation. They can decide to mandate those based on their risk assessment. This is considered necessary when, for safety reasons, they consider that such operations require more than the mandatory services listed in the regulation. One example could be weather services for operations taking place in a location where the wind or temperature are known to be hazardous factors. 1 Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky (the service provision Regulation) (OJ L 96, 31.03.2004, p. 10) (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1582541782395&uri=CELEX:32004R0550). Page 3 of 17 Annex to ED Decision 20xx/xxx/R  Draft acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to Opinion No 01/2020 on a high-level regulatory framework for the U-space This article further clarifies the obligations of the Member States in the case of cross-border U-space airspace. GM1 to Article 5 Common Information Service U-SPACE ARCHITECTURE This article contains the requirements related to the provision of the necessary information for the functioning of U-space. The objective is to ensure that the information comes from trusted sources and that it is of sufficient quality, integrity and accuracy as well as security so that the USSPs and other users such as ASNPs can use this information with full reliability when providing their services. Based on the comments received during the AB consultation, EASA has reconsidered whether or not an organisation should be certified and designated by Member States as the CIS provider for each U- space airspace implementation in which they will provide the service. The fact that the Member States designate a CIS provider does not mean that there is only one CIS provider per Member State; it means that there is only one provider per U-space airspace. There could be as many CIS providers as there are designated U-space airspaces. The reason for having one CIS provider per U-space airspace is to ensure that there is one single point of contact, one single point of truth that consolidates all the information necessary for the functioning of the U-space airspace. The CIS is at the heart of the U-space system. The information will be managed by the CIS provider. This provider ensures that all the information can be exchanged between the various organisations to fulfil their obligations. This article specifies the necessary information that needs to be made available for the U-space and the quality and information security requirements applicable for the service provider. The CIS works on the basis that the exchange of information is being ensured by application of (open) communication protocols allowing USSPs and ANSPs to exchange information through the appropriate interface. The USSPs shall use the information provided by the CIS provider to provide U-space services to UAS operators. This article also specifies that the CIS provider cannot be a USSP itself. This is necessary to ensure that there is no conflict of interest when the common information is made available to the different USSPs and that there is fair competition in the U-space services market. GM1 to Article 5(3)(g) Common Information service DEVIATION THRESHOLD When the CIS provider makes the authorisation for deviation threshold available, this information should include not only lateral deviation but also time-window deviation. For instance, when the UAS operator cannot meet the allocated departure window with the consequence that the flight must be realigned with current operations. Page 4 of 17 Annex to ED Decision 20xx/xxx/R  Draft acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to Opinion No 01/2020 on a high-level regulatory framework for the U-space GM1 to Article 6 UAS operators OBLIGATIONS WHEN OPERATING IN U-SPACE AIRSPACE This article covers the obligations for UAS operators when they operate in the U-space airspace. The proposed requirements are based on the assumption that UAS operators share the airspace with manned aircraft. To ensure that the risk of mid-air collision is adequately mitigated and an orderly flow of traffic is ensured, UAS operators are obliged to meet a number of requirements. At a strategic level, the UAS operators shall consider where U-space airspace is designated when preparing for their UAS operations in that airspace and establish a contract with one certified USSP of their choice that provides the mandatory set of U-space services in that airspace. At pre-tactical level, they are asked to submit their flight authorisation request form to the USSP they have a contract with if they want to operate in U-space airspace, and to ensure that they do so in accordance with the terms and conditions of the flight authorisation once it is granted by the USSP. Certain conditions need to be met prior to the flight: they are not allowed to commence their flight until they have been granted with a flight authorisation by the USSP and they have to ensure that they are able to comply with the terms and conditions given by the USSP in the granted flight authorisation. In case they cannot comply with the one granted by the USSP, they have to amend their original flight authorisation request. Compliance with the instructions of the USSP is required, as well as ensuring that their UAS are technically capable of receiving the U-space services and of operating in the U-space airspace. The obligations are based on today’s technical capability requirements for the ‘open’ category in the drone regulations but are additionally mandatory for the ‘specific’ category when flying in the U-space airspace (Regulations (EU) Nos 2019/945 and 2019/947). GM1 to Article 6(1)(e) UAS operators SUBMISSION OF THE FLIGHT AUTHORISATION REQUEST FORM Unless otherwise determined by the competent authority, the UAS flight authorisation request form should normally be submitted at least 5 minutes prior to estimated take-off time. GM1 to Article 7 Obligations for operators of manned aircraft operating in U-space airspace MINIMUM INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED This article covers the cases when a manned aircraft operator operates in U-space airspace that is in uncontrolled airspace and where UAS operate. In order to allow the USSPs to safely manage the unmanned aircraft in that U-space airspace and provide the UAS operator with manned traffic information, they need to know where the manned aircraft will be in the U-space airspace. They will then be able to take the necessary measures to ensure that the air risk is mitigated. The information that manned aircraft operators need to provide is their position at regular intervals, with the necessary level of performance in terms of integrity, accuracy, continuity and availability as well as security to allow the USSPs to make use of this data for the provision of U-space services. EASA intends to propose some AMC in that regard, to define which means can be used by manned aircraft Page 5 of 17 Annex to ED Decision 20xx/xxx/R  Draft acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to Opinion No 01/2020 on a high-level regulatory framework for the U-space operators for the purpose of U-space airspace. These AMC will be developed together with the affected manned aviation community (e.g. general aviation, helicopter operators and military/State stakeholders). GM1 to Article 8 U-space service providers GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A USSP is a new entity created by the regulation proposed with this Opinion. It is an organisation that is certified by the relevant competent authority to provide U-space services in U-space airspace(s) designated by the Member States. When the USSP provides services of a pan-European nature, the certification authority is EASA. USSPs provide services to UAS operators or to other USSPs. It is important to note that in order to be a USSP, the interested entity needs to demonstrate its capability of providing at least the four mandatory U-space services (network identification, geo- awareness, traffic information and UAS flight authorisation). They can contract out the provision of some or all U-space services to other entities as long as it remains under their management control. There can also be associations of USSPs or equivalent mechanisms as long as it is clear that there is one single entity responsible for providing the minimum set of services towards the UAS operators. In relation to the flight authorisation management, USSPs are required to take actions with regard to the flight authorisation request of the UAS operators (e.g. checking for completeness, plausibility and accuracy, accept it or not, notify the UAS operator, etc.). To provide their services, they have to use the information from the CIS (e.g. airspace restrictions, status of the airspace and available traffic information) and exchange information such as UAS traffic and flight authorisation requests when necessary with ANSPs. They can do this using the relevant technical interface means in order to exchange the information between themselves. USSPs need to be certified if they want to provide U-space services, but they do not need to be designated for the U-space airspace in which they aim to provide U-space services. Once they are certified, they can provide services in any U-space airspace in the EU. In order to be certified, they need to provide all mandatory U-space services, namely network identification, geo-awareness, traffic information and UAS flight authorisation as listed in Chapter IV. In the short term, it is not considered that USSPs would provide ATC-like service in controlled airspace. If USSPs would provide ATC-like services (e.g. separation services for manned aircraft) within controlled airspace, they would need to meet the same certification requirements that ATS providers meet today and be designated as stipulated in the SES Regulation. This is not foreseen in the near future but as soon as U-space services similar to tactical separation services are mature (developed and validated), EASA would review the applicable regulations and defined the appropriate regulation proportionate to the safety risks associated with the service providers (e.g. with requirements equivalent to those applicable to ATS providers). In uncontrolled airspace, USSPs provide services to UAS operators but the airspace being uncontrolled for manned aircraft, the manned aircraft need to be provided with information on where U-space airspace is established so that they can make available their position to the USSPs. This will allow Page 6 of 17 Annex to ED Decision 20xx/xxx/R  Draft acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to Opinion No 01/2020 on a high-level regulatory framework for the U-space USSPs to provide U-space services to UAS with the view to resolving potential conflict and ultimately avoiding collisions. All the requirements in this article are meant to ensure that USSPs can provide services to support the safe and efficient movement of aircraft in the U-space airspace. They are also meant to ensure coordination with the relevant ANSPs so that manned aircraft movements are safe and efficient. AMC1 to Article 8(2) U-space service providers RETENTION OF DATA The data retained should consist of, as a minimum: — exchange with the UAS operators relevant to the UAS flight plan acceptance; — requested and issued flight authorisations/re-authorisations; — traffic information provided to UAS operators; — coordination exchange with the ATS units and between U-space service providers; — flown trajectory by the UAS operators; — status and the level of service of the infrastructure used for the provision of the service GM1 to Article 8(5) U-space service providers CONTINUITY OF SERVICE U-space service providers should ensure the provision of service in which the services are available without interruption for the period of time declared in advance by the U-space service providers. The degradation of the service does not mean that the continuity of service is broken. AMC1 to Article 8(6) U-space service providers UAS FLIGHT AUTHORISATION REQUEST FORM When receiving a UAS flight authorisation request form, the U-space service provider should be equipped with applications that allow automatic syntax and semantic check of the received UAS flight authorisation request form. If one or more errors would be identified in the flight authorisation request form, all the errors in it should be identified with a single check. The errors should be notified to the UAS operator and the originator of the UAS flight authorisation request form in order to be corrected and the status of the UAS flight authorisation request form should be rejected. If rejected, for other reasons than syntax or semantic errors, these reasons should be notified to the originating UAS operator. Page 7 of 17 Annex to ED Decision 20xx/xxx/R  Draft acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to Opinion No 01/2020 on a high-level regulatory framework for the U-space GM1 to Article 8(12) U-space service providers PRIORITY RULES The priority rules referred to in this article are contained in Article 12 (Flight authorisation service). Such priority rules are given for the flight authorisation only and do not mean that U-space service providers will ensure aircraft separation. GM1 to Article 9 Occurrence reporting REPORTING SYSTEM This article requires USSPs to report occurrences, based on the current regulation on the occurrence reporting, analysis and follow-up of occurrences in civil aviation. This is applicable to all aviation actors and domains to which the regulation applies and it is considered important for safety that the occurrences in which U-space activities are involved also need to be reported. It is important to note that the present occurrence reporting regulation does not define all the U-space-related occurrences but EASA will make proposals to the European Commission on the relevant U-space occurrences in the very near future. AMC1 to Article 9(1) Occurrence reporting REPORTING PROCEDURES The service provider should establish procedures to be used for reporting to the competent authority and any other organisation required which include: (a) description of the applicable requirements for reporting; (b) description of the reporting mechanism, including reporting forms, means and deadlines; (c) personnel responsible for reporting; and (d) description of mechanism and personnel responsibilities for identifying root causes, and the actions that GM1 to Article 10 Network identification service GENERAL EXPLANATION This article clarifies that the identification service proposed in the U-space framework is based on the requirements for remote identification contained in Regulation (EU) 2019/945 to avoid requiring additional UAS equipment or capabilities. Nevertheless, the purpose of the service is complementing the original intent of the one in Regulation (EU) 2019/945. Whereas the remote identification in Regulation (EU) 2019/945 supports the authorities in aspects related to security and privacy, the network identification service within U-space airspace operationally supports traffic safety and the traceability of the unmanned aircraft during its flight. Indeed, based on this information, the USSPs can share UAS traffic information between themselves and therefore provide traffic information to UAS operations. This service meets the objective of providing advice and information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of UAS flights. The content of the information is based on the list included in Regulation (EU) 2019/945 for consistency and in order to avoid additional UAS equipment or Page 8 of 17 Annex to ED Decision 20xx/xxx/R  Draft acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to Opinion No 01/2020 on a high-level regulatory framework for the U-space capabilities in particular for the ‘open’ category. In addition, it is now specified that both broadcast and network information shall be received. This is consistent with the upcoming amendment to Regulation (EU) 2019/945 and supports the redundancy under certain use cases, although limited to certain cases of U-space airspace implementation. GM1 to Article 11 Geo-awareness service GENERAL EXPLANATION This article contains the service requirements when USSPs provide geo-awareness service to UAS operators. The geo-awareness contained in Regulation (EU) 2019/945 is related to the UAS capabilities and the requirements for the Member States when they decide to establish geographical zones or for the UAS operators to follow and comply with the specification of these zones. This services aims to support UAS operators in fulfilling these obligations as it provides this information (where it is allowed to fly and where not) with the level of accuracy and other performance for which it has been certified. By using this service in a U-space airspace, the UAS operators can discharge part of their responsibility related to this UAS operator obligation. GM1 to Article 12 Flight authorisation service GENERAL EXPLANATION This article provides the description for the flight authorisation service. This service is mandatory in both controlled and uncontrolled airspace and applies to UAS operators only, not to manned aircraft — like the rest of the U-space services. The reason for being mandatory also in uncontrolled airspace is the need for situational awareness of the USSPs of all the UAS traffic intending to operate in the U- space airspace. This allows USSPs to apply the prioritisation rules prior to providing the authorisation. It also allows them to pre-tactically manage traffic flow. With the information about the intended flight and other information about the type of the operations and its endurance as well as some related aircraft performance, the USSPs should be able to de-conflict the potentially conflicting flights before these flights take place. In order to do so, when there is more than one USSP providing U-space services in the U-space airspace, all USSPs are obliged to share the flight authorisation requests between themselves (of course adhering to the GDPR requirements). The platform that was foreseen for all USSPs providing services in a certain case of U-space airspace implementation was named in the previous draft ‘USSP platform’. Based on the comments received during the consultation which indicated that EASA’s proposal was going too much into an architecture, the requirements related to the USSP platform have been included into the USSPs’ obligations and some other are proposed as requirements for the CIS provider. Still, the objective is the same. In some cases of U-space airspace implementation, this obligation for the USSPs to be able to identify and share information between all the USSPs providing services within U-space airspace is fulfilled with the so-called discovery and synchronisation service. This approach will be included by EASA in the associated AMC and GM in the near future. As mentioned above, in Article 6 (UAS operators), the flight authorisation service is provided on the basis of the UAS operator having filled in the flight authorisation request form (former flight plan) that Page 9 of 17 Annex to ED Decision 20xx/xxx/R  Draft acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to Opinion No 01/2020 on a high-level regulatory framework for the U-space UAS operators need to fill in before flight departure. The content of this form is provided in Appendix 2 to the Regulation. GM1 to Article 13 Traffic information service GENERAL EXPLANATION This article contains the requirements for the provision of known air traffic information relevant to the UAS operator’s flight (those in close proximity to the position or intended route of the UAS flight). To provide this service, the USSP may use the information on other traffic available to them through the network identification system or through other technical means (e.g. from manned aircraft ADS- B, transponders, etc.) implemented in the U-space airspace. The main objective of this service is to alert and to help the UAS operator to avoid a collision. This service provides the alerts, air situation and known/predicted (e.g. if tracking service is available) traffic to the UAS operator. Detailed and accurate information about the position of other unmanned aircraft and the update frequency of the information will need to be identified and being assessed during the USSP certification process for the specific U-space airspace implementation. GM1 to Article 14 Tracking information service GENERAL EXPLANATION This article contains the requirements when tracking service is used as a supporting service to provide traffic information services and support, for instance, the flight authorisation service. This service can be used to track the real-time and historical telemetry data of the UAS if the necessary supporting infrastructure exists and the UAS is flying in the range of the service capability. The providers of such service can track UAS through the signal between the aircraft and its remote controller as well as through additional surveillance observations available for the same UAS flight. They can then fuse all this information to calculate/estimate a UAS flight track. To be able to provide this service, there is a need to have different UAS flight information sources. The performance expected from this service will be based on the performance of the UAS flight information sources and the method and algorithm used for the tracking fusion. They shall be commensurate with the specific U-space airspace implementation and this shall be assessed during the certification process. In practical terms, this service receives data from the different tracking sources coming from the USSPs (e.g. e-identification), UAS or the CIS provider to fuse it into unique and reliable UAS flight tracks. GM1 to Article 15 Weather information service GENERAL EXPLANATION This article lays down the requirements for the weather services and what weather information should be provided by USSPs providing weather service. This service collects the weather information necessary to support UAS operational decisions in a specific U-space airspace and support the provision of other U-space services such as the flight authorisation service. Page 10 of 17 Annex to ED Decision 20xx/xxx/R  Draft acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to Opinion No 01/2020 on a high-level regulatory framework for the U-space It is recognised that the weather information for UAS operations may be different from the one provided by today’s meteorological service providers; in particular, as regards support of operations under the ‘open’ and ‘specific’ categories. UAS can fly near buildings and in areas where current aeronautical meteorological information is not always provided. Therefore, this article specifies a minimum content of weather information to be available for the purpose of UAS operations in the near future. It does not exclude the possibility that current aeronautical meteorological service providers can also provide this service. The proposed regulation does not specify who may provide this service. Regulation (EU) 2017/3731 contains the provisions on aeronautical meteorological services for MET providers that provide aeronautical meteorological services within ATM/ANS. In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 (the SES service provision regulation), MET providers have to be certified to provide MET services; however, they may be designated (or not) by Member States to provide services. This is the case for MET providers providing aeronautical meteorological services within ATM/ANS. The legal basis for U-space services and their providers does not require any designation of these organisations and, therefore, this leaves the door open as to which organisation may provide weather services in the U-space airspace. GM1 to Article 16 Conformance monitoring service GENERAL EXPLANATION This article includes a general description of the objective of the conformance monitoring service and what the requirements are for the USSPs providing this service. This service checks the current track of each UAS with respect to its planned mission as defined in the approved flight authorisation and compares it with it. It also considers the existence of new geo-fencing areas dynamically established and not existing before the flight authorisation was approved and alerting the UAS operators when detecting non-conformities. The monitoring is performed per UAS flight. When non-conformities of the UAS flight are detected, and potential hazardous situations are evident, the USSPs shall also alert other traffic (manned or UAS) and other USSPs or other relevant authorities with the available means. It is acknowledged that for some VLOS flights in areas of very low traffic, the monitoring service will be of little added value. This is however a U-space service that supports achieving the objectives of the Regulation as soon as traffic density and complexity increase. GM1 to Article 17 Application for a CIS provider and U-space service provider certificate GENERAL REQUIREMENTS The provision of U-space services /CIS within the EU shall be subject to certification by the relevant competent authority established by the Member States. In the case of USSPs that wish to provide U- 1 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 of 1 March 2017 laying down common requirements for providers of air traffic management/air navigation services and other air traffic management network functions and their oversight, repealing Regulation (EC) No 482/2008, Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1034/2011, (EU) No 1035/2011 and (EU) 2016/1377 and amending Regulation (EU) No 677/2011 (OJ L 62, 8.3.2017, p. 1) (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?qid=1582472923004&uri=CELEX:32017R0373). Page 11 of 17 Annex to ED Decision 20xx/xxx/R  Draft acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to Opinion No 01/2020 on a high-level regulatory framework for the U-space space services across the EU (pan-European services), the certifying authority is EASA. This article provides the framework for the recognition of certificates at EU level. In order to provide the CIS as well as U-space services, both the CIS provider and the USSP have to be certified by the competent authority. The certification scheme aims at preserving public interest requirements, most notably in terms of safety, and the certificate confirms that the CIS provider or USSP meets the requirements contained in the Regulation for providing specific services to the level of performance defined for the particular U-space airspace implementation and commensurate with the risk associated with the services they provide. The competent authority issues the certificate provided they comply with the requirements referred to in Article 6 and those contained in Chapter IV for the U-space services they provide. Certificates are issued for a bundle of such services (network identification, geo-awareness, traffic information and flight authorisation plus any supporting U-space services used to provide the mandatory ones) and the competent authority shall check the validity of the certificate on a regular basis. The certificates shall specify the rights and obligations of the CIS provider and USSP, with particular regard to safety and also with regard to security of information (e.g. cybersecurity). In order to maintain their certificate valid once it has been issued, the USSP and CIS provider shall respect the conditions and limitations set out by the certifying competent authority in Appendices 2 and 3 for the USSP (see paragraph below) and CIS provider respectively. Such conditions should be objectively justified, non- discriminatory, proportionate and transparent. Appendices 2 and 3 introduce the standard certificate forms for the USSP and the CIS provider. By introducing this single certificate concept, all the privileges of a USSP are to be mentioned in the attachment to the certificate specifying the types of U-space services, the respective conditions and associated limitations. For the CIS provider, the certificate form does not include an attachment with the type of services, conditions and limitations of the certificate because the CIS provider shall always provide the required CIS for the U-space airspace for which the CIS provider has been designated. This facilitates the mutual recognition of certificates across the EU. GM1 to Article 18 Conditions for obtaining a certificate GENERAL This article lists the conditions for obtaining a CIS or a USSP certificate. It is based on criteria and requirements similar to those used for ATM/ANS providers (those contained in Subpart B of Annex III to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373) to obtain and maintain their certificate. These requirements are considered to be also applicable to CIS providers and USSPs providing services to UAS operators in the U-space airspace as their services are of a similar nature to that of the ones provided by ATM/ANS providers. As both the CIS provider and USSPs are organisations that directly contribute to safe UAS operations within U-space airspace, it is important that they have a risk-based management system in place. In order to apply this system and to take into account the different types of CIS providers/USSPs and the performance of the services they manage, the proposal lists some necessary requirements for the management system. The elements of this management system are therefore harmonised for all the different types of CIS providers or USSPs, but their application may be different depending on the Page 12 of 17 Annex to ED Decision 20xx/xxx/R  Draft acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to Opinion No 01/2020 on a high-level regulatory framework for the U-space different services provided. Therefore, the proposed management system provides a proportionate application of requirements to both providers. Subpart B of Annex III to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 is referenced as it includes the elements of the management system, the procedures to manage the changes to such system and what to do in case some activities are contracted to other organisations. In addition, personnel and facilities requirements, the storage and protection of records as well as the provision of an operations manual are also important elements to assess as a prerequisite for granting a certificate. The management system required for USSPs and CIS providers is focused on managing the performance of the services they provide and as such is focused on quality and managing the relevant interfaces with those providers and organisations that have the safety view (ATC providers and UAS operators). Similarly to ANSPs, when the USSPs provide ATC-like services such as tactical de-confliction services to UAS operators and therefore they have the safety view, they will be required to have a safety management system in place. Once they can demonstrate that the way they are organised corresponds to the provision of their services and those are provided to the level of the required performance, CIS providers/USSPs may be granted with a certificate by the competent authority. CIS providers and USSPs are also required to implement an information security management system which is quite important for these organisations as in order to provide their services, they will use highly automated systems with a high degree of digitalisation. In addition, they will need to implement the necessary liability and insurance covers corresponding to their services and the relevant emergency response as conditions to obtain a certificate. GM1 to Article 18(1) Conditions for obtaining a certificate TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL CAPACITY Technical and operational capacity should include a sufficient number of personnel to perform its tasks and discharge its responsibilities. AMC1 to Article 18(2) Conditions for obtaining a certificate QUALITY OF U-SPACE SERVICES When the Common Information service provider uses systems and equipment to ensure the quality of the U-space services, it should ensure that such systems and equipment can provide the following quality performance: reliability, accuracy, integrity, responsiveness, assurance (to be further completed/improved) AMC1 to Article 18(5) Conditions for obtaining a certificate INFORMATION SECURITY THREAT Information security threat may be any circumstance or event with the potential to adversely impact the operation, systems and/or constituents due to human action (accidental, casual or purposeful, Page 13 of 17 Annex to ED Decision 20xx/xxx/R  Draft acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to Opinion No 01/2020 on a high-level regulatory framework for the U-space intentional or unintentional, mistaken) resulting from unauthorised access, use, disclosure, denial, disruption, modification, or destruction of information and/or information system interfaces. This should include malware and the effects of external systems on dependent systems, but does not include physical threats. AMC1 to Article 18(6) Conditions for obtaining a certificate SAFETY ASSESSMENT (a) The CIS/U-space service provider should ensure that the safety assessment comprises: (1) the identification of hazards; (2) the risk analysis of the effects related to a change; (4) the risk evaluation and, if required, risk mitigation for a change; (5) the verification that any change meets the safety criteria; (6) the specification of the monitoring criteria necessary to demonstrate that the service delivered by the changed functional system will continue to meet the safety criteria. (b) The safety assessment should be conducted by the CIS/U-space services provider itself. It may also be carried out by another organisation, on its behalf, provided that the responsibility for the safety assessment remains with the CIS/U-space services provider. GM1 to Article 18(6) Conditions for obtaining a certificate SAFETY ASSESSMENT (a) A safety assessment needs to be performed before a CIS/U-space service provider is granted a certificate and when a change affects a part of the management system of the CIS/U-space service provider and that is being used in the provision of its services. (b) The safety assessment or the way it is conducted does not depend on whether the change is a result of a business decision or a decision to improve safety. AMC1 to Article 18(8) Conditions for obtaining a certificate INSURANCE COVER The method employed to provide the cover should be appropriate to the potential loss and damage in question, taking into account the legal status of the providers concerned and the level of commercial insurance cover available. GM1 to Article 19 Validity of the certificate CONDITIONS OF VALIDITY This article mitigates the situations where a CIS provider or USSP does no longer comply with the requirements applicable to it. Two major elements are taken into account: the operational and financial performance. Page 14 of 17 Annex to ED Decision 20xx/xxx/R  Draft acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to Opinion No 01/2020 on a high-level regulatory framework for the U-space If the competent authority finds that the holder of a certificate no longer satisfies the requirements, it can act appropriately to ensure that safety is not compromised. Such measures may include the revocation of the certificate. The validity of the certificate is unlimited provided that the CIS provider or USSP continues to operate in compliance with the requirements of this Regulation. This approach should facilitate and promote the implementation of a risk-based oversight scheme by the competent authority, and also allow for continuous oversight based on the identified risks instead of oversight aiming at ensuring compliance and closing the findings only at the stage of the re-certification process. A specific paragraph reflects the situation where the provider is not active, either at the beginning or during its activities. This is to ensure that the certificate serves its main purpose which is to ensure that the provider operates and continues to operate under the applicable requirements. AMC1 to Article 19(3) Validity of U-space service provider certificate CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THE FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF U-SPACE SERVICE PROVIDERS (a) U-space service providers should be able to meet their financial obligations, such as fixed and variable costs of operation or capital investment costs. They should use an appropriate cost- accounting system. (b) They should demonstrate their ability through balance sheets and accounts, as applicable under their legal statute, and regularly undergo an independent financial audit. GM1 to Article 20 Competent authority RESPONSIBILITIES The main objective of this article is to ensure that the competent authorities have the capacity to assess the resources needed to effectively perform their certification, oversight and enforcement tasks and to act accordingly should this not be the case. It also specifies that EASA is the competent authority for the CIS providers or USSPs providing pan-European services, that is if they provide services within more than one Member State or when the services are provided from outside the territory to which the EU Treaty applies. GM1 to Article 21 Tasks of the competent authorities CERTIFICATION, OVERSIGHT AND OPERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES This article proposes requirements for competent authorities that perform certification, oversight and enforcement tasks in respect of the CIS provider and USSPs. It also lists a number of obligations that are directly related to the functioning of the U-space system. With a view to ensuring that the requirements for the CIS provider or USSPs are complied with at all times while ensuring that the competent authorities can effectively perform their tasks, those authorities are granted certain specific investigatory powers. Those powers should be exercised in Page 15 of 17 Annex to ED Decision 20xx/xxx/R  Draft acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to Opinion No 01/2020 on a high-level regulatory framework for the U-space accordance with the applicable national rules and procedures, while having due regard to a number of specific elements which are meant to ensure a fair balance between all rights and interests. Competent authorities also need to act in order to ensure that the U-space system as a whole can function properly. This is why they are mandated to establish and maintain a registration system to record the service providers involved in the U-space, to determine the type of data to be made available to those who need it, and the way this data can be exchanged in order to guarantee interoperability of the systems. GM1 to Article 21(1)(h) Task of the competent authorities AVAILABILITY OF THE INFORMATION [Guidance material to be further developed to provide examples of the relevant information to be provided]. GM1 to Article 22 Exchange of safety information and safety measures COOPERATION, COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF SAFETY INFORMATION This article highlights the importance of safety information exchange between the national authorities and EASA so that they can take the necessary measures to address the safety issues and notify them to the persons or organisations concerned. GM1 to Article 23 Pricing of U-space services PRICING FREEDOM A UAS operator should be able to rely on a single contract with a USSP of its choice that covers all required U-space services in a U-space airspace. USSPs can decide to conclude subcontracts with other USSPs or other organisations if they are not able to provide all mandatory services themselves. However, the USSP remains responsible for all mandatory services provided in the particular U-space airspace implementation. U-space services should be provided in a competitive market. USSPs should be allowed to offer their services on the European market and be free to set prices in line with market demand and in all transparency. Airspace users within the ATM system should not contribute to the financing of the U-space services. The regulation should avoid any cross-subsidisation between the provision of ANS and U-space services. GM1 to Article 24 Pricing of CIS ECONOMIC REGULATION The CIS provider designated per U-space airspace is one. This is a monopoly and the price of the CIS thus needs to be regulated. The price should reflect the cost for the management of the CIS, with a Page 16 of 17 Annex to ED Decision 20xx/xxx/R  Draft acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to Opinion No 01/2020 on a high-level regulatory framework for the U-space markup reflecting the risks associated with its activities. ANSPs and USSPs should exchange safety information through the CIS for free. GM1 to Article 25 Amendments to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 AIR NAVIGATION SERVICE PROVIDERS This article proposes two amendments to Regulation (EU) 2017/373 that lays down common requirements for ANSPs. As the interaction of USSPs with ANSPs is necessary to ensure the exchange of information and the coordination for air traffic management in the U-space airspace, it is necessary to put requirements on the ANSPs. Because these entities are regulated under the said Regulation, it is proposed to amend the relevant provisions of this Regulation to include such ANSP obligations. GM1 to Article 26 Entry into force and applicability TRANSITION PERIOD It is important to provide Member States, potential USSPs and CIS providers as well as ANSPs, UAS and unmanned aircraft operators with sufficient time to allow them to effectively implement the Regulation. However, it is also important to ensure that the implementation of what it is considered to be the first-phase regulation on U-space does not lead to obsolete technical solutions. Therefore, the proposal is that the implementation time is 1 year after Regulation enters into force. It is equally important to ensure that the implementation of this first-phase regulation provides valuable results based on which more advanced services and procedures can be developed at regulatory and standardisation level. The proposal of 1 year for transition period considers also the fact that there are already some industry standards developed related to the mandatory U-space services, as well as the fact that there are similar cases of implementation already within the different Member States. Page 17 of 17 Annex to ED Decision 20xx/xxx/R