2014/2243(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas a series of important pre- conditions still need to be addressed and met in order to ensure that RPAS do not pose serious risks for citizens' fundamental rights to privacy and data protection, to security and to safety and that RPAS can be fully integrated into the European civil aviation system, as demonstrated by a series of accidents and incidents, which reveal that a series of technological advances and legal requirements still need to be developed, integrated and implemented across the whole RPAS chain to ensure that citizens are fully protected;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the establishment of 28 national legislations regulating the use of RPAS for civil purposes would result in fragmentation of the rules in force in the EU and would hinder the development of the single European RPAS market and the establishment of common guarantees designed to protect the fundamental rights of citizens to privacy, the protection of personal data, security and safety.

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)

Bb. Whereas greater access to RPAS by consumers will also have enormous societal effects, changing deeply our commercial and private interactions;

Amendment 13 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas only a clear and complete EU and Member States' regulatory framework, addressing the whole RPAS chain and guaranteeing safety, security, privacy and data protection, environmental protection, responsibility and liability, law enforcement action, insurance, identification and transparency, can guarantee the safe integration of RPAS into the civil aviation system;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas solid, common European rules on RPAS for civil purposes will enable the necessary legal certainty for the economic development of a European RPAS industry to be safeguarded whilst ensuring the fundamental rights of European citizens.

Amendment 15 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Recital B c (new)

Bc. whereas it is key that the EU can play a decisive role in setting international standards, it shall take into account national stakeholders and practitioners, especially with regard to Law enforcement and intelligence;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Recital B c (new)

Bc. whereas the development of RPAS for civil purposes will have positive repercussions for European industry, SMEs, growth and jobs, and in civil protection missions, humanitarian interventions and the protection of vital infrastructures.

Amendment 17 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Recital B d (new)

Bd. whereas a distinction must be made between RPAS for recreational purposes and RPAS for professional purposes; whereas some particularly intrusive technologies must be prohibited in recreational use; whereas the high-power technology with which some RPAS for professional use are equipped must comply with the principles of proportionality and legitimacy.

Amendment 18 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Recital B e (new)

Be. whereas RPAS and their uses can be particularly intrusive in the area of privacy and the protection of personal data; whereas the loss of the direct link between the device and its user engenders a sense of exoneration from the responsibility of its operation.

Amendment 19 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Recital B f (new)

Bf. whereas the loss of control of an RPAS by its user might pose a considerable risk to people’s safety and security.

Amendment 2 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) can be used for a range of civil (non-military) purposes, such as critical infrastructure and civil protection, disaster management and search and rescue, environmental protection, law enforcement and surveillance, intelligence, journalism, commercial activities and leisure;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Recital B g (new)

Bg. whereas the danger of drones being hijacked poses a real threat to internal security and constitutes an extra risk to the protection of data and privacy.

Amendment 21 #

Ana GOMES

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Supports therefore the Commission proposal to swiftly modify Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation by reconsidering its lack of competence for regulating RPAS under 150 kilograms so as to ensure that the EU can properly and fully regulate the integration of RPAS into the civil aviation system by addressing the safety, security, privacy and data protection preconditions for the civil use of RPAS;

Amendment 22 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Reiterates that when personal data are processed by RPAS operated in the EU, including for law enforcement purposes and leisure, the right to the protection of personal data enshrined in 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) applies and that the EU legal framework for data protection is to be fully complied with;

Amendment 23 #

Monika HOHLMEIER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Reiterates that when personal data are processed by RPAS operated in the EU, including for law enforcement purposes, the right to the protection of personal data enshrined in 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) applies and that the EU legal framework for data protection is to be ~~fully~~ complied with; in certain cases where people’s lives or physical integrity are endangered or under threat, the Member States must be able to take extraordinary measures under the procedural law in force;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Reiterates that the right to privacy is guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and that the use of RPAS must not compromise this guarantee.

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission to ensure that, in the development of any EU policy on RPAS, privacy and data protection guarantees are embedded, by making, as a minimum requirement, impact assessments and privacy by design and by default compulsory, including the development of the necessary guidelines and monitoring mechanisms to ensure the full respect and enforcement of existing and future laws governing RPAS use;

Amendment 26 #

Birgit SIPPEL, Gabriele PREUSS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission to ensure that, in the development of any EU policy on RPAS, privacy and data protection guarantees are embedded, by making, as a minimum requirement, impact assessments and privacy by design and by default compulsory; underlines the necessity for a restrictive legal framework with clear and narrow criteria regarding the use of cameras and sensors especially by commercial and private RPAS;

Amendment 27 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission to ensure that, in the development of any EU policy on RPAS, privacy and data protection guarantees are embedded, by making, as a minimum requirement, impact assessments and privacy by design and by default compulsory; for all RPAS used in the EU; urges the Commission to take full account of the expertise of the European Data Protection Supervisor in this regard.

Amendment 28 #

Marina ALBIOL GUZMÁN, Marie-Christine VERGIAT, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Underlines that the use of RPAS by law enforcement and intelligence services have to respect the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection and that the potential risks that are associated with the use of RPAS by law enforcement and intelligence services need to be addressed;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that neither European Agencies nor Member States use RPAS for purposes related to surveillance of people or territories;

Amendment 3 #

Marina ALBIOL GUZMÁN, Marie-Christine VERGIAT, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas there is the risk that RPAS may be used by public authorities or private companies to conduct mass surveillance of the population or to monitor certain areas such as borders or places where protests take place;

Amendment 30 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Underlines the economic importance of this sector and calls for policies that protect privacy and ensure data protection while not imposing disproportionate burdens on SMEs;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that RPAS used in the EU comply with strict standards in terms of the protection of citizens’ fundamental rights, security, safety, the protection of privacy and of personal data.

Amendment 32 #

Marina ALBIOL GUZMÁN, Marie-Christine VERGIAT, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Calls on the Commission to ensure that RPAS are not used in order to interfere with fundamental rights such as privacy, freedom of movement or protest;

Amendment 33 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Considers that particular emphasis should be given to identification and traceability, as it may be essential to ensure security and the enforceability of individual rights;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Calls on the Member States to organise training courses for professional users of RPAS, which should include a section on data protection and privacy fully integrating the European and national laws in force.

Amendment 35 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3c. Calls on the Commission to set up a single European information system in the form of a handbook for all purchasers of RPAS for recreational purposes to make sure they are fully informed of the European and national rules on data protection and the right to privacy, safety and security.

Amendment 36 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)

3d. Calls on the Commission to examine the obligation to fit RPAS with a traceability and identification system enabling their real-time position during use and their owners to be identified; calls on the Commission to investigate the possibility of setting up a corresponding database.

Amendment 37 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Filiz HYUSMENOVA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 e (new)

3e. Calls on the Commission to enable mutual recognition among the Member States of professional RPAS users in order to prevent any market obstacles for services involving the use of RPAS.

Amendment 38 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Filiz HYUSMENOVA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 f (new)

3f. Calls on the Commission to keep Parliament fully informed of any action – including impact studies – it intends to take in the area of RPAS;

Amendment 39 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Filiz HYUSMENOVA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 g (new)

3g. Calls on the Commission to finance research projects aimed at monitoring by technological means the use of RPAS (for example by geofencing) and projects aimed at reducing the risk of RPAS hijacking.

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas, notwithstanding the potential and benefits of RPAS, their use entails significant risks ~~and~~since the future development of both RPAS and other technologies may make possible the near- permanent, pervasive surveillance and tracking of people and objects; and it also entails specific challenges when it involves the processing of personal data, as it interferes with fundamental rights, namely the rights to privacy and data protection;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. 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), safety and security (pilot licences, flight authorisation, identification and monitoring of RPAS and of RPAS flights, including in no-fly zones, such as airports and other critical infrastructure, third-party liability insurance for drone operators and rules that should be followed when operating a drone, such as those on visual contact), privacy and data protection and also any other applicable law, such as criminal, intellectual property, aviation, and environmental law, which should be specified in a notice for buyers;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. 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), safety and security (pilot licences, flight authorisation, identification and monitoring of RPAS and of RPAS flights, including in no-fly zones, such as airports and other critical infrastructure, and rules that should be followed when operating a drone, such as those on visual contact), privacy and data protection and also any other applicable law, such as criminal, intellectual property, aviation, and environmental law~~, which should be specified in a notice for buyers;~~; (deleted part moved to new 4a)

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that rules at EU and national level should clearly set and indicate the provisions applicable to RPAS in relation to the internal market and international commerce (production, sale, purchase, trade and use of RPAS), safety and security (pilot licences, flight authorisation, identification and monitoring of RPAS and of RPAS flights, including in no-fly zones, such as airports and other critical infrastructure, and rules that should be followed when operating a drone, such as those on visual contact), privacy and data protection and also any other applicable law, such as criminal, intellectual property, aviation, and environmental law, which should be specified in a notice for buyers;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Underlines that RPAS also pose potential safety and security risks since they could be used as weapons or to jam the navigations or communication systems. Thus, security aspects of RPAS operations must be examined to avoid unlawful interference in order for manufacturers and operators to take the appropriate security mitigating measures by using methods such as cyber-defence or geofencing. Security requirements for RPAS should be identified and legal obligations should then be applied to all relevant parties.

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Underlines the need to ensure that any person operating a RPAS should be made aware of the rules that are applicable to the use of RPAS and that these rules should be specified in a notice to anyone acquiring a RPAS;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Is concerned about the fact that currently law enforcement action against illegal, unsafe or irresponsible use of drones is extremely difficult if not impossible and invites law enforcement authorities to indicate possible ways to ensure that they can carry out their activities to defend citizens' rights, safety and security;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Reminds that RPAS are per definition dual-use technology and because of this feature many RPAS could easily be transformed from a civilian tool to a military weapon; stresses that this fact requires very strict and rigorous rules and a debate to which degree the export of civilian RPAS to third countries should be regulated by strict rules, inter alia, the eight criteria of the Common Position on arms exports (944/2008);

Amendment 47 #

Marina ALBIOL GUZMÁN, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Calls on the Commission to support the development of the necessary technology to ensure safety and security in the operation of RPAS, for example the detect and avoid technology and geo- fencing;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Calls on the Commission to ensure that Horizon 2020 funds aimed at RPAS are to be directed primarily towards research and development into systems, technologies, etc. that can be used to enhance privacy by design and default and to allow the safe use of civilian RPAS.

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Strongly recommends that the current discussions between EU and national policy makers and regulators, industry, SMEs and commercial operations should be opened up and that a public debate should be launched with the participation of citizens and other relevant stakeholders such as civil rights organizations, to take note and address the concerns related to the use of RPAS.

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas, notwithstanding the potential and benefits of RPAS, their use entails significant risks and specific challenges when it involves the processing of personal data, as it interferes with fundamental rights, namely the rights to privacy and data protection, and when it involves public security as RPAS can, deliberately or indeliberately, be used to cause damage to human beings and infrastructure;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Strongly recommends that the Commission presents a Communication dedicated exclusively to the impacts on Justice and Home Affairs, namely on data protection, privacy , security, Law enforcement and Intelligence.

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls on the Commission to adopt a Communication devoted to the risks regarding fundamental rights and security that are associated with RPAS in order to inform the public debate that includes a thorough analysis with a detailed impact assessment;

Amendment 52 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Filiz HYUSMENOVA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls the Commission to report in detail and in straightforward terms, for instance in its upcoming impact assessment, about which actions it plans to undertake in the "drones' chain" to ensure that the objectives of safety, security, respect of fundamental rights, namely privacy and data protection, environment, responsibility and liability, law enforcement action, insurance, identification and transparency, technological development, can be achieved, with recommendations for MS and/or EU action, and possible options.

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls on the TRAN and LIBE committees to arrange a joint hearing with representatives of industry, national privacy protection organisations, the European Data Protection Supervisor, the Commission and NGOs working in the area of fundamental rights.

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Calls on the Commission to consider a yearly reporting mechanism that would take into account technical development as well as policy development and best practice from the national level and that would address RPAS incidents;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Calls on the Commission to present an overview and evaluation of the regulatory approaches at Member State level, so as to allow a comparison and to identify best practices, including past, present and future use of EU funds for civilian and military drones development;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas there have been numerous serious security incidents with so called civilian RPAS in the recent past such as the incidents around nuclear plants in France, and an attack on the Japanese Prime minister including chemical agents;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the ever decreasing size of RPAS components will lead to more portable and undetectable devices, and technologies such as cameras are highly enhanced by RPAS, posing new challenges to data protection, privacy and security of citizens;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the risks that are associated with the respect for privacy and data protection need to be addressed with the same priority as the safe operation of RPAS;

Amendment 9 #

Ana GOMES

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. Is seriously concerned at the negative impact of the lack of EU-wide regulation on the civilian use of RPAS on EU citizens fundamental rights, namely the right to privacy; is of the view that, considering the nature of RPAS, its applications and potential uses, its use in the field of civilian aviation is a matter of EU concern and that its regulation needs to be consistent and harmonised across all EU Member States, both for technological purposes and rights and guarantees;

source: 560.679

2015/07/24 TRAN 153 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)

- having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 4(2)(g) and Title VI and Article 16 thereof,

Amendment 10 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas RPAS technology can replace direct human intervention in dangerous environments;

Amendment 100 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 4

– owner/operator traceability, accountability;

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 4

– the identity of the drone and the owner/operator ~~traceability~~;

Amendment 102 #

Motion for a resolution
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)

- exclusion zones;

Amendment 104 #

Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 6 a (new)

- insurance;

Amendment 105 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 7 a (new)

- drone identification;

Amendment 106 #

Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 7 a (new)

- new skills needed to develop the RPAS market;

Amendment 107 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 7 a (new)

- insurance and civil liability system;

Amendment 108 #

Gabriele PREUSS, Ismail ERTUG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 7 a (new)

- cooperation between EASA and competent national authorities;

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 7 a (new)

- data protection

Amendment 11 #

Janusz ZEMKE, Gabriele PREUSS, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY

Motion for a resolution
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 110 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 7 a (new)

- "geofencing" to allow competent authorities defining no-fly zones;

Amendment 111 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 7 a (new)

- liability and insurance;

Amendment 112 #

Janusz ZEMKE, Gabriele PREUSS, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 7 b (new)

- privacy and data protection;

Amendment 113 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 7 b (new)

- "rules of the air" for low level operations;

Amendment 114 #

Janusz ZEMKE, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Gabriele PREUSS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 7 c (new)

- data protection and privacy

Amendment 115 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Believes that small RPAS used for hobbyist and recreational purposes should not be burdened with unnecessary red- tape such as licensing of pilots;

Amendment 116 #

Dominique RIQUET, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Urges to establish a uniform EU system of certification of the operators of the RPAS, as well the system of certification of RPAS pilots;

Amendment 117 #

Motion for a resolution
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 118 #

Jacqueline FOSTER

Motion for a resolution
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; (Correction of terminology)

Amendment 119 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas greenhouse gases could be reduced if aircraft with high fossil energy consumption were replaced, for certain tasks, by smaller, lighter electrically powered drones;

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

Amendment 121 #

Motion for a resolution
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, and in addition, take into account no-fly zones, such as airports, nuclear and chemical plants and other critical infrastructure;

Amendment 122 #

Janusz ZEMKE, Bogusław LIBERADZKI, Gabriele PREUSS, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY

Motion for a resolution
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

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 124 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
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)

(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 126 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Reminds that the European GNSS Programme EGNOS augmenting the GPS signal was certified for civil aviation in 2011 and that Galileo will in the next few years gradually enter into the exploitation phase; believes in this respect that an advanced system of air traffic management as well as applications for RPAS based on European GNSS programmes will positively contribute to the safe operation of RPAS;

Amendment 127 #

Janusz ZEMKE, Gabriele PREUSS, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Calls on the Commission and the bodies and companies concerned to boost their research and development programmes; considers that, taking into account the expected economic spin-offs from this sector, the EU should favour the development of European technologies, for example through Horizon 2020; asks for account also to be taken of the development of drone detection and capture technologies in research programmes;

Amendment 128 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

~~21. Supports the Commission's intention to remove the 150kg threshold defining the certifying competences between EASA and national authorities;~~deleted

Amendment 129 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Supports the Commission’s intention to remove the 150kg threshold defining the certifying competences between EASA and national authorities; insists, however, that removing this limit must be accompanied by a boosting of the Agency’s human and financial resources; is very concerned at the possibility that otherwise this new division of competences will cause the sector to slow down rather than expand;

Amendment 13 #

Gabriele PREUSS, Ismail ERTUG

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas current EU legislation stipulates that the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is, in principle, the certifying authority for RPAS with a maximum take-off mass of more than 150 kg; whereas RPAS of 150kg or lessall RPAS should fall under the jurisdiction of the Member States;

Amendment 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Supports the Commission's intention to remove the 150kg threshold defining the certifying competences between EASA and national authorities; notes that existing national regulations for RPAS of less than 150kg should be analysed and integrated in the new European regulatory framework

Amendment 131 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Supports the Commission’s intention to re~~move~~view the 150kg threshold ~~defining the certifying competences between EASA and national authorities~~with 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 132 #

Motion for a resolution
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 133 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 – point b (new)

(b) Notes that enforcement of RPAS legislation is key to the safe and successful integration of RPAS in European airspace;

Amendment 134 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 – point c (new)

Amendment 135 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Having in mind the principle of common internal market, draws attention to the need to determine the cross-border corridors for the drones above 150 kg at the current classification for flights between Member States, and to determine the method of control and supervision of these flights; encourages to draw up a proposal for cross-border use of drones that involves the candidate countries for membership in the EU, as well as with third countries;

Amendment 136 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Calls on EASA and national authorities to ensure that their rules do not lead to excessive red tape and that systems for authorising operations are based as far as possible not on a case-by- case scenario but, for example, on a system of one validation per operator and/or group of flights;

Amendment 137 #

Janusz ZEMKE, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Gabriele PREUSS

Motion for a resolution
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 to be used by EASA for RPAS Regulation;

Amendment 138 #

Motion for a resolution
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 139 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Considers that these instances should build up a regulatory corpus which would not transpose the rules of manned flight en bloc but would form a proportionate, progressive and risk-based body of rules;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas RPAS regulations exist or are being developed in ~~Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Spain and the UK1~~many 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=16012~~are already operational;

Amendment 140 #

Janusz ZEMKE, Bogusław LIBERADZKI, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Gabriele PREUSS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Strongly believes that JARUS is, therefore, ideally placed to quickly and effectively draft global safety regulations for RPAS operations; believes that JARUS should ensure that any future EU rules will be compatible with international arrangements in other countries, through a process of mutual recognition;deleted

Amendment 141 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. ~~Strongly believes that JARUS is, therefore, ideally placed to quickly and effectively draft global safety regulations for RPAS operations; believe~~Considers that JARUS shcould ensure that any future EU rules will be co~~mpatible~~ordinated with international arrangements in other countries, through a process of mutual recognition;

Amendment 142 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Strongly believes that JARUS is, therefore, ideally placed to quickly and effectively draft global safety regulations for RPAS operations; believes that JARUS should ~~ensure tha~~take into account anyll future EU rules w~~ill be compatible with~~hen implementing international arrangements ~~in other countries, through a process of mutual recognition~~;

Amendment 143 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Strongly believes that JARUS is, therefore, ideally placed to quickly and effectively draft global safety regulations for RPAS operations to be taken into account by EASA; believes that ~~JARUS~~EASA should ensure that any future EU rules will be compatible with international arrangements in other countries, through a process of mutual recognition and will harmonise the national rules of the Member States; EASA should also ensure that the EU Regulation covers all aspects including safety, security, privacy and personal data protection;

Amendment 144 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Strongly believes that JARUS is, therefore, ideally placed to quickly and effectively draft global safety ~~regulation~~standards 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 145 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
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 146 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Considers that Members States' Data Protection A~~genc~~uthorities should work together in order to share ~~data and~~best practices, ensureing compliance with existing data protection guidance;

Amendment 147 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Considers that Members States' Data Protection Agencies should work together in order to share data and ensure compliance with existing data protection guidance, such as Directive 95/46/EC;

Amendment 148 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Considers that Members States' Data Protection Agencies and the European Data Protection Supervisor should work together in order to share data and ensure compliance with existing data protection guidance;

Amendment 149 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24a. Considers that at the moment it is mainly drones for recreational use carrying cameras which pose a risk to privacy; calls on the law-enforcement authorities of the Member States to exchange best practices on combating these flights if they are of a criminal nature;

Amendment 15 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas RPAS regulations exist or are being developed in Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, 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 http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1 995&pageid=16012

Amendment 150 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. ~~Recalls that additional technology- specific data protection legislation for RPAS should not be necessary according to the Commission; b~~Believes 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;

Amendment 151 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)

25a. Warns that the fact that drones are getting ever smaller and will eventually be difficult to spot in the air could give rise to problems in future.

Amendment 152 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26a. Calls on the Commission to consider the best way of regulating this sector as soon as possible; draws the attention of the Commission to the fact that the amendment to the EASA regulation goes beyond drones alone, which might have consequences for the speed with which it is adopted;

Amendment 153 #

Motion for a resolution
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.

Amendment 16 #

Janusz ZEMKE, Bogusław LIBERADZKI, Gabriele PREUSS, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas RPAS regulations exist or are being developed in Austria, Croatia, Denmark, France, 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 http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1 995&pageid=16012

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
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 #

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
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 19 #

Motion for a resolution
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 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 b (new)

- having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular Articles 7 and 8 thereof,

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas all RPAS rules in place in Europe are tailored to assessing the safety 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 expertise of the operator ~~and~~, the particular type of operation and the ability of the operator to deal with unforeseen circumstances;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
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’~~determined according to the type of operation 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 expertise of the operator and the particular type of operation;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
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 23 #

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
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~~characteristics 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

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 25 #

Franck PROUST, Renaud MUSELIER

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas th~~e potential for growth in this industry~~is industry operates in a high added-value service economy based on a complex value chain: design, manufacture, operation, training, and processing, storage, sharing, and exploitation of information; whereas, especially where Europeans are concerned, its potential for growth, 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 and support European know-how and technology;

Amendment 26 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
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 #

Dominique RIQUET, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
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 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
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 29 #

Franck PROUST, Renaud MUSELIER

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas even at this early stage, Member States, industry and the Commission have all recognised the potential of this market and are keen to stress that any policy framework must enable the European industry to growth in order to compete globally;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 c (new)

- having regard to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data,

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas this nascent market offers significant opportunities for ~~both~~ investment, innovation and job creation across the supply chain, and to the benefit of society, whilst recognising at the same time that the public interest must be safeguarded, covering in particular issues related to privacy, data protection, accountability and civil liability;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
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 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)

Ia. Whereas, even recognising the RPAS economic potential, RPAS development shall be one of the most important challenges in the future looking at the aviation industry safety, persons and companies security and safety,

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)

Ia. whereas the EU should, as quickly as possible, produce a legislative framework purely for civil use of RPAS;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I b (new)

Ib. whereas the European legislative framework must, on the one hand, allow industry to go on innovating and to develop under optimum conditions and, secondly, give the public an assurance that life and property, as well as personal data and privacy, will be effectively protected;

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I c (new)

Ic. whereas such legislation should not be confined to revision of civil aviation regulations, but has to cover other areas, including the electromagnetic spectrum and the insurance system;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

~~I. The international dimension~~deleted

Amendment 37 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
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;deleted

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
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 39 #

Motion for a resolution
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 (400 in the UK, 300 in Germany, 1 500 in France, 250 in Sweden, etc.) compared to 2 342 operators in the rest of the world;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 d (new)

- having regard to the opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on "A new era for aviation - Opening the aviation market to the civil use of remotely piloted aircraft systems in a safe and sustainable manner",

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that Japan has a large number of RPAS operators and two decades of experience, mostly in RPAS precision farming operations, such as crop spraying; recalls that it was the first country to allow RPAS technology to be used in farming activities during the mid- nineties and the number of operators multiplied within a few years;deleted

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that Israel has a very active manufacturing industry, but with a direct focus on military RPAS; underlines the fact that an integrated civil-military air navigation service now makes it easier to integrate RPAS into Israeli airspace;deleted

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that Israel has a very active manufacturing industry, but with a direct focus on military RPAS, which are being used against civilian populations in occupied Palestinian territories and, in all probability, in Syrian airspace, in breach of international law; underlines the fact that an integrated civil-military air navigation service now makes it easier to integrate RPAS into Israeli airspace;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

~~4. Notes that Australia, China (where many of the very small RPAS are manufactured) and South Africa are among the 50 other countries that are currently developing RPAS;~~deleted

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

~~5. Stresses that the global dimension of RPAS must be acknowledged and calls upon the Commission to take full account of this;~~deleted

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1

State of play ion ~~EU Member States~~the global level and in EU

Amendment 46 #

Dominique RIQUET, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that all important States in the world and EU Member States have some RPAS activities, either in manufacturing and/or operationally as well as in managing problems that occur; therefore, urges the Commission to propose as soon as possible a legislative framework in terms of fair competition, safety, security, and data protection;

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
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 48 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Considers that the RPAS sector urgently requires competent authorities to create ~~global~~European rules in order to ensure cross- border RPAS development; 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 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Considers that the RPAS sector urgently requires ~~competent authorities to create global rules in or~~European 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 development~~investment 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 5 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
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 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Considers that the RPAS sector urgently requires competent authorities to create global, harmonised rules in order to ensure cross-border RPAS development; 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 and a risk regarding safety and security;

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Considers that the RPAS sector urgently requires international as well as EU competent authorities to create global rules respectively European in order to ensure cross-border RPAS development; 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 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Believes that a European framework, if it were clear, effective, reliable, and put in place without delay, might assist the discussions on global rule-making for the use of drones;

Amendment 53 #

Dominique RIQUET, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Considers that future legislation of that kind will need to establish a clear distinction between professional and recreational use of remotely piloted aircraft;

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
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 55 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Underlines the fact that safety and security are paramount for any RPAS operations and rules and that they must be commensurate with the risks;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
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 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Underlines the fact that the subject of data protection and privacy is also key in order to facilitate the growth and the safe integration of RPAS into civil aviation, while strictly respecting Directive 95/46/EC on data protection and 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);

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Stresses that in the short term, from an ATM perspective, operational procedures are already in place to allow RPAS to fly outside specific and restricted areas; ~~recalls that many civil and military RPAS are flown using dedicated corridors by increasing the standard separation criteria normally used for manned aircraft;~~

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Stresses the importance of ‘out-of- sight’ flights for the development of the sector; considers that European legislation should favour this modus operandi;

Amendment 6 #

Dominique RIQUET

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas small, radio-controlled model aircraft have been flown by enthusiasts for many decades; whereas during the last 15 years, there has been rapid growth in the use of RPAS, ~~more commonly known as~~which come under the broader category of UAVs or drones; whereas in particular small RPAS, designed for both hobbyist and recreational purposes have become increasingly popular;

Amendment 60 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Notes that the impact of RPAS on manned traffic is limited due to the small ratio of RPAS to manned aircraft; recognises, however, that air traffic management (ATM) pressures may increase due to the ~~welcome~~ growth of sports and recreational RPAS, ~~but~~which may in some circumstances pose a threat to air traffic safety; 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 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Notes that~~Recognises 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 recreational~~civil use of RPAS, ~~but~~and 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 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Notes that the impact of RPAS on manned traffic is limited due to the small ratio of RPAS to manned aircraft; recognises, however, that air traffic management (ATM) pressures may increase due to the welcome growth of sports and recreational RPAS, but calls for this factor to be taken into account by the relevant authorities and by the future EU rules in order to ensure a continued efficient standard of ATM across Member States;

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Underlines the fact that in the long term, technical and regulatory solutions should preferably enable RPAS to use the airspace alongside any other airspace user without imposing on the latter new equipment requirements; notes that that there are a large number of small RPAS operating below 500 feet, together with manned aircraft, which means that the flight level at which unmanned aircraft may be operated should be clearly delimited; stresses that although ANSPs do not provide ATC services at these altitudes, they do have a responsibility to provide sufficient information for both types of aircraft to coexist in the same airspace; notes that EUROCONTROL is supporting states in creating a common understanding of the issues involved and in driving harmonisation as much as possible;

Amendment 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Underlines the fact that in the long term, technical and regulatory solutions should preferably enable RPAS to use the airspace alongside any other airspace user ~~without imposing on the latter new equipment requirements~~; notes that that there are a large number of small RPAS operating below 500 feet, together with manned aircraft; stresses that although ANSPs do not provide ATC services at these altitudes, they do have a responsibility to provide sufficient information for both types of aircraft to coexist in the same airspace; notes that EUROCONTROL is supporting states in creating a common understanding of the issues involved and in driving harmonisation as much as possible;

Amendment 65 #

Dominique RIQUET, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Considers the question of identifying drones, of whatever size, to be crucial; underlines that solutions should be found which take into account the recreational or commercial use to which drones are put;

Amendment 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Believes that a clear, global, harmonised and proportionate regulatory framework needs to be developed on a risk assessed basis, which avoids ~~burdensom~~disproportionate regulations for businesses that ~~would~~might 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 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Believes that a clear, ~~global,~~ harmonised and proportionate European regulatory framework needs to be swiftly developed on a risk assessed basis, which takes account of different uses and avoids burdensome regulations for businesses that would deter investment and job creation; believes that this framework should be part of a long-term perspective, taking into account the possible future developments and other aspects of these technologies;

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Believes that a clear, ~~global,~~ harmonised and proportionate European regulatory framework needs to be developed on a risk assessed basis, which avoids burdensome regulations for businesses that would deter investment ~~and~~, job creation and innovation in the RPAS industry;

Amendment 69 #

Dominique RIQUET, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Believes that a clear, global, harmonised and proportionate EU regulatory framework ~~needs to be developed on a risk assessed basis, which avoids burdensome regulations for businesses that would deter investment and job crea~~, to be proposed by the Commission and co-decided by the European Council and the European Parliament, needs to be developed on a risk assessed basis, which must define a clear scope in terms of weight, speed and altitude criteria and include i.a. performant safety and security rules, strict data protection as well as fair commercial competition;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
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 as~~the 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 benefit~~production, airborne thermography, or parcel delivery in isolated regions;

Amendment 70 #

Janusz ZEMKE, Bogusław LIBERADZKI, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Gabriele PREUSS

Motion for a resolution
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

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 ade~~ter investment and job crea~~quately protect citizens and foster investment to create sustainable and innovative jobs and improve working conditions;

Amendment 72 #

Georges BACH, Jacqueline FOSTER

Motion for a resolution
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 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Insists that model aircraft, defined as non-human carrying aircraft operated under visual line of sight ("VLOS") conditions for the purpose of control and safe separation from other traffic, and used exclusively for non-commercial recreational, sport or competition purposes shall be excluded explicitly from the EU's forthcoming regulatory framework on RPAS.

Amendment 74 #

Janusz ZEMKE, Gabriele PREUSS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Encourages the innovative technologies regarding the RPAS that have an enormous potential for job creations, in particular green jobs as it includes professions from a vast spectrum; encourages to develop and explore the great potential to involve SMEs with respect to the production services of specialised parts and materials; highlights the need to organize and promote centres for qualifications and training for specialized job positions in RPAS sector;

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Supports the Commission's intention to remove the 150kg threshold and to replace it by an EU coherent and comprehensive regulatory framework, where there is place for national competent authorities, qualified bodies or associations to assume validation and oversight activities; the proportionality in the rules should be matched by the necessary flexibility in processes and procedures;

Amendment 76 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
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); believes also that privacy, data protection and any other applicable law, such as criminal, intellectual property, aviation and environmental law, including those which relate to the many different risks and responsibilities associated with flying RPAS, should be specified in a notice for purchasers;

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
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 78 #

Janusz ZEMKE, Bogusław LIBERADZKI, Gabriele PREUSS, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY

Motion for a resolution
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); 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 notice for purchaser~~EU legislation; encourages to consider the potential danger of theft of RPAS and subsequent criminal activities regarding to privacy and private data available, thus demonstrating the need to mitigate the consequences of such criminal actions;

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Considers that ~~rules at EU and national level~~the 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 8 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
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 80 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

Amendment 81 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Considers that rules at ~~EU and national~~Member State 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); 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 notice for purchasers;

Amendment 82 #

Kateřina KONEČNÁ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Stresses that the number of cases of small RPAS being used to violate personal rights has skyrocketed; notes that such cases can only be prevented if an RPAS and the person controlling it can be identified on the spot; adds that this cannot be achieved unless only RPAS that meet pre-defined common standards as regards the technology which makes them identifiable are licensed for sale on the EU market;

Amendment 83 #

Motion for a resolution
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 84 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Considers that industry and regulators must come together ~~in order to~~to guarantee legal certainty favouring investment and 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; stresses that SMEs should be genuinely linked to this standardisation process;

Amendment 85 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Highlights the necessity of continued sufficient support for the R&D and innovation activities related to RPAS, in particular in the frame of Horizon 2020 and COSME programmes;

Amendment 86 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. RPAS open the new possibilities for innovative technologies and materials; thus considers that it is of highest importance to ensure the recyclability of the materials and products used for RPAS production;

Amendment 87 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)

17b. Encourages the sustainable and ecological solutions for the management of old and no longer in use RPAS on the basis of the circular economy;

Amendment 88 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 c (new)

17c. Highlights the importance of sustainable choice of fuels that should favour the decrease of greenhouse gas emissions rather than risking to increase them; encourages to fully explore the potential of renewable energy sources in finding the appropriate solution that will be environmentally friendly;

Amendment 89 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 d (new)

17d. Highlights the importance to regulate the permitted amount of greenhouse gas emissions from the RPAS that use fossil fuel for propulsion or engine functioning; encourages the development of alternative fuels with less emissions into the environment;

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas technology developed primarily for military purposes is now being applied commercially, pushing legislative boundaries; whereas today ~~RPAS~~professional 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 RPAS~~of professional RPAS applications also provides significant environmental benefits;

Amendment 90 #

Janusz ZEMKE, Gabriele PREUSS, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Considers that in order to ensure the safe operation of RPAS, European regulatory requirements will need to be based on ~~either a case-by-case or a type/class-based approach, whichever is appropriate~~a "risk based approach" in line with the Riga Declaration and the Concept of Operations as developed by EASA, 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 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Considers that ~~in order~~the 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 92 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Considers that in order 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 93 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Considers that in order 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 94 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Pavel TELIČKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Demands to develop regulations in the field of insurance, including but not limited to securing cargo and compensation in case of collision of two or more drones, in case of damaging buildings, injuring people and endangering people's lives;

Amendment 95 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – introductory part

19. Considers that future European rules on RPAS should address issues relating to:

Amendment 96 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – introductory part

19. Considers that future rules on RPAS should address issues relating to: the following aspects, taking into account the recreational or commercial use of drones and the airspace in which they are called upon to operate:

Amendment 97 #

Motion for a resolution
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 98 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – indent 1 a (new)

- exclusion zones;

Amendment 99 #