Activities of Pavel TELIČKA related to 2014/2243(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Safe use of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) in the field of civil aviation (A8-0261/2015 - Jacqueline Foster)
Amendments (31)
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)
Citation 4 a (new)
- having regard to the Concept of Operations for Drones ´A risk based approach to regulation of unmanned aircraft´ of the European Aviation Safety Agency
Amendment 8 #
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 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 RPAS also provide significant environmental benefits; whereas the rapid developments of new applications can be foreseen in the near future, which illustrates the innovative and dynamic nature of the RPAS industry;
Amendment 14 #
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 and the UK1many members states; whereas many approved flying schools in Denmark, the UK and the Netherlands, and more than 500, and licenced RPAS pilots in the Netherlands and the UK are already operational; __________________ 1 http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1 995&pageid=16012are already operational;
Amendment 19 #
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 area overflown, the altitude, the expertise of the operator and the particular type of operation;
Amendment 23 #
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 machinecharacteristics of the machine (weight, scope of operation and speed), but also on additional factors, such as the area overflown, the expertise of the operator and the particular type of operation;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the potential for growth in this industry, from the manufacturer to the end user, is immense, for both large businesses and the supply chain composed of thousands of SMEs alike; whereas it is imperative to maintain world class standards of manufacturing while promoting European leadership;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the potential for economic growth in this industry, from the manufacturer to the end user is immense, for both large businesses and the supply chain composed of thousands of SMEs alike as well as innovative start-ups; whereas it is imperative to maintain world class standards of manufacturing and standards of operations;
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 28 #
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; additional funding for further Research and Development (R&D) will be crucial to supporting this new industry and the safe and secure integration of RPAS into airspace.
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas this nascent market offers significant opportunities for both investment, innovation and job creation across the supply chain, whilst recognising at the same time that the public interest must be safeguarded and a high level of safety of the airspace must be maintained;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the US is seen by many as the leading market for the use of RPAS, albeit for military operations; stresses however that Europe is the leader in the civilian sector with 2 500 operators compared to 2 342 operators in the rest of the world, and should do its utmost to boost its strong competitive position;
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 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that the RPAS sector urgently requires competent authorities to create global rules in orEuropean rules in order to ensure cross-border RPAS development while fostering the set-up of global rules; considers that a clear European legal framework is neederd to ensure cross- border RPAS developmentinvestment and development of a competitive European RPAS sector; underlines the fact that if no action is taken promptly, there is a risk that the economic potential and positive effects of RPAS will not be fully realised;
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 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Underlines the fact that the subject of data protection and privacy is key in order to promote broad public support for the use of civil RPAS, and is therefore also key in order to facilitate the growth and the safe integration of RPAS into civil aviation, in line with Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and therefore calls on the Commission to foster the development of standards on the concepts of privacy by design and privacy by default;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes thatRecognises the impact of RPAS on manned traffic is limited due to the small ratio of RPAS to manned aircraft; recognises, however,; notes that air traffic management (ATM) pressures may increase due to the welcome growth of sports and recreationalcivil use of RPAS, butand calls for this factor to be taken into account by the relevant authorities in order to ensure a continued efficient standard of ATM across Member States;
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 72 #
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 burdensome regulations for businesses that would deter investment and job creation; A thorough risk assessment should be based on the concept of operations categories established by EASA1 a and should take into account inner characteristics of the RPAS (weight, scope of operation, speed) and the nature of their use (recreational or professional); __________________ 1a EASA, Concept of Operations for Drones - A risk based approach to regulation of unmanned aircraft, published in May 2015
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Considers that rules at EU and national level 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) and the fundamental rights of privacy and data protection; believes also that privacy, data protection and any other applicable law, such as criminal, intellectual property, aviation and environmental law should be specified in a clear notice for purchasers;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Considers that industry and regul, regulators and commercial operators must come together in order to avoid the ‘chicken-and-egg' problem, whereby industry is reluctant to invest in developing the necessary technologies without certainty about how they will be regulated, while regulators are reluctant to develop standards until industry comes forward with technologies for authorisation;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – introductory part
Paragraph 19 – introductory part
19. Considers that future European rules on RPAS should address issues relating to:
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 4
Paragraph 19 – indent 4
– owner/operator traceability, accountability;
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 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Underlines that RPAS must be equipped with ‘seedetect-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;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Underlines that 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 nor impose any additional burden on them, and in addition, take into account no-fly zones, such as airports and other critical infrastructure; Suggest that in the case of RPAS intended for recreational purposes, their technical characteristics could be defined so as to ensure their use cannot pose any threat to manned aircraft;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 – point a (new)
Paragraph 20 – point a (new)
(a) Notes that RPAS in line with a risk based approach should be equipped with an ID-chip and registered to ensure traceability, accountability and a proper implementation of civil liability rules;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 – point a (new)
Paragraph 21 – point a (new)
(a) Therefore supports the Concept of Operations for drones developed by EASA which defines three different categories of RPAS and corresponding rules;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 – point c (new)
Paragraph 21 – point c (new)
(c) Calls on the European Commission and Member States to ensure sufficient means of enforcement of RPAS legislation;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Strongly believes that JARUS is, therefore, ideally placed to quickly and effectively draft global safety regulationstandards for RPAS operations; believes that JARUS and ICAO should ensure that any future EU rules will be compatible with international arrangements in other countries, through a process of mutual recognition;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Considers that Members States' Data Protection Agencuthorities should work together in order to share data andbest practices, ensureing compliance with existing data protection guidance;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Recalls that additional technology- specific data protection legislation for RPAS should not be necessary according to the Commission; bBelieves that Member States' data protection agencies should share existing specific data protection guidance for commercial RPAS, and calls on Member States to carefully implement data protection legislation in such a way that both fully addresses the public's concerns regarding privacy and does not lead to a disproportionate administrative burden on RPAS operators;