Activities of Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY related to 2014/2243(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Safe use of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) in the field of civil aviation (debate) FR
Amendments (31)
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas technology developed primarily for military purposes is now being applied commercially, pushing legislative boundaries; whereas today RPAS used in a professional context also provide significant benefits for different civil uses, such asthe added value of which increases with the distance between the aircraft and the remote pilot (BVLOS (beyond visual line- of-sight) operations); whereas RPAS applications, which are highly varied and could extend to still more fields in the future, can be used, for example, for safety inspections and monitoring of infrastructure (rail tracks, dams, and power facilities), for assessing natural disasters, (environmentally responsible) precision farming operations and, media use; whereas the use of RPAS also provide significant environmental benefitproduction, airborne thermography, or parcel delivery in isolated regions;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas technology developed primarily for military purposes is now being applied commercially, pushing legislative boundaries; whereas today RPASprofessional RPAS applications also provide significant benefits for different civil uses, such as safety inspections and monitoring of infrastructure (rail tracks, dams, and power facilities), for assessing natural disasters, precision farming operations and media use; whereas the use of RPASof professional RPAS applications also provides significant environmental benefits;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas there are two types of RPAS applications, namely professional RPAS applications and recreational RPAS applications; whereas these two categories, which are intrinsically different from each other, should be governed by separate regulatory frameworks;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas RPAS regulations exist or are being developed in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Spain, Poland and the UK1; whereas approved flying schools in Denmark, the UK and the Netherlands, and more than 500 licenced RPAS pilots in the Netherlands and the UK are already operational; __________________ 1 http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1 995&pageid=16012
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas RPAS regulations exist or are being developed in Austria, Denmark, France1a, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Spain and the UK1; whereas approved flying schools in Denmark, the UK and the Netherlands, and more than 500 licenced RPAS pilots in the Netherlands and the UK are already operational; __________________ 1 ahttp://www.developpement- durable.gouv.fr/Quelle-place-pour-les- drones-dans.html 1 http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1 995&pageid=16012
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas all RPAS rules in place in Europe are tailored to assessing the risk of the operation; whereas such RPAS rules are ‘operator centric’ and do not take the ‘aircraft centric’ approach used in manned aviation; whereas the risk depends not only on the type of machine, but also on additional factors, such as the specific application, the area overflown, the expertise of the operator and the particular type of operation;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas in recognition of the rapid development of this market, RPAS are rightly being incorporated into existing aviation programmes, such as the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) Joint Undertaking and Horizon 2020; whereas industry has already invested significant financial resources and would be encouraged to redouble its investment effort if SMEs, which make up its largest part, were able to obtain financing more easily;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Notes that because there are no harmonised rules at EU level, the development of a European drone market might be impeded, given that national authorisations are generally not mutually recognised among Member States;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Underlines the fact that safety and security are paramount for any RPAS operations and rules; considers that the future European regulatory framework should be tailored to the specific risks associated with BVLOS flights (beyond the visual line of sight) without, however, acting as a deterrent to such flights;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Believes that a clear, global, harmonised and proportionate regulatory framework needs to be developed on a risk assessed basis, which avoids burdensomdisproportionate regulations for businesses that wouldmight deter innovation, investment and job creation; underlines the need for future rules to distinguish between RPAS for professional use and those for recreational use;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Believes that a clear, global, harmonised and proportionate regulatory framework needs to be developed on a risk assessed basis, which, without prejudice to the safety and security of RPAS, avoids burdensome regulations for businesses that would deter investment and job creation;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Believes that a clear, global, and harmonised and proportionate regulatory framework needs to be developed on a risk assessed basis, which avoids burdensome regulations for businesses that w to establish proportionate regulations allowing drone operations as soon as practically possible. The regulations should adeter investment and job creaquately protect citizens and foster investment to create sustainable and innovative jobs and improve working conditions;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Considers that rules at EU and national levelthe EU rules should clearly indicate the provisions applicable to RPAS in relation to the internal market and international commerce (production, sale, purchase, trade and use of RPAS); believes also that the EU safety rules should contribute to the correct enforcement of privacy, data protection and any other applicable law, such as criminal, intellectual property, aviation and environmental law; the basic rules should be specified in a notice for purchasers;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Considers that in orderthe concept of operations as proposed by EASA is a solid basis to ensure the safe operation of RPAS, regulatory requirements will need to be based on either a case-by-case or a type/class-based approach, whichever is appropriate, and shall ensure a high level of safety and interoperability; considers that in order to ensure the success of RPAS manufacturers and operators, it is vital that the European Organisation for Civil Aviation Equipment's (EUROCAE) standardisation requirements be validated by the relevant regulatory body;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – introductory part
Paragraph 19 – introductory part
19. Considers that future rules on RPAS should address issues relating to the following aspects whilst making a clear distinction between RPAS for professional use and those for recreational use:
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 4 a (new)
Paragraph 19 – indent 4 a (new)
- traceability of location-finding equipment and systems on board and of surveillance and alarm systems (geofencing);
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 5 a (new)
Paragraph 19 – indent 5 a (new)
- exclusion zones;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 7 a (new)
Paragraph 19 – indent 7 a (new)
- cooperation between EASA and competent national authorities;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 7 a (new)
Paragraph 19 – indent 7 a (new)
- "geofencing" to allow competent authorities defining no-fly zones;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 7 b (new)
Paragraph 19 – indent 7 b (new)
- privacy and data protection;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 7 b (new)
Paragraph 19 – indent 7 b (new)
- "rules of the air" for low level operations;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 7 c (new)
Paragraph 19 – indent 7 c (new)
- data protection and privacy
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Underlines that RPAS flying out of sight and at an altitude above 500 feet must be equipped with ‘see-and-avoid’ technology in order to detect aircraft using the same airspace, ensuring that RPAS do not put at risk the safety of manned aircraft, and in addition, take into account no-fly zones, such as airports and other critical infrastructure; proposes, for RPAS flying at a lower altitude, the use of information-sharing applications of the ‘inform to avoid’ type, which would be provided to all users of this airspace;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Underlines that, at more than 500 feet from the ground and in areas where they might encounter other aircraft, RPAS must be equipped with ‘see-and-avoid’ technology in order to detect aircraft using the same airspace, ensuring that RPAS do not put at risk the safety of manned aircraft, and in addition, take into account densely-populated areas, no-fly zones, such as airports and other critical infrastructure;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Underlines that RPAS must be equipped with ‘see'detect-and-avoid' technology in order to detect aircraft using the same airspace, ensuring that RPAS do not put at risk the safety of manned aircraft, and in addition, take into account no-fly zones, such as airports and other critical infrastructure; urges therefore the Commission to provide for the necessary R&D budgets through the SESAR Joint Undertaking.
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Supports the Commission’s intention to removeview the 150kg threshold defining the certifying competences between EASA and national authoritieswith the aim of introducing a European regulatory framework taking account of the role and know-how of national authorities and other bodies involved. The regulatory framework should be based on the principle of proportionality in order to avoid superfluous administrative barriers to the development and use of RPAS;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses that the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS) is an international voluntary membership body comprising of national civil aviation authorities from 22 EU and non-EU countries and regulatory agencies/bodies; recalls that JARUS is chaired by a representative of EASA, the Agency which will deal with future RPAS regulation; recalls that JARUS's purpose is to develop technical, safety and operational requirements for the certification and safe integration of large and small RPAS into the airspace and at aerodromes; reiterates the need for the swift delivery of rules for the EU market, which can only be guaranteed by a pro- active role of EASA in the JARUS process.
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Considers that Jarus should not simply transpose the system established for classical aviation but should create a proportionate, progressive and risk-based mechanism; considers that the rules formulated by Jarus should express the objectives to be met by the sector’s standards in order to ensure that the EU’s future rules are compatible with international provisions in other countries through a process of mutual recognition;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Considers that the development of EASA’s competences in the area of RPAS should be taken into consideration in the Agency’s budget to ensure that it can carry out the missions assigned to it.