search

ArduPilot / ardupilot

ArduPlane, ArduCopter, ArduRover, ArduSub source
http://ardupilot.org/
GNU General Public License v3.0
11.06k stars 17.61k forks source link

EASA requierements for certified UAS #4731

Closed severinleuenberger closed 3 years ago

severinleuenberger commented 8 years ago

Hello dev-team

Are there already plans to meet / fulfill the requirements from EASA? Because without a CE certified UAS or quite some effort to get it certified there will be no legal flying of any UAS in Europe anymore :-( And EASA could be already go live in 2017! So dont keep this down low.

Regarding technical requirements, I especially think about to restrict the aircraft to a specific height limit like 50 or 150m above ground And the requirement to restrict the Aircraft to prefedined no fly zones, that cannot be changed manually (not deactivatable by users). Ssee I.6.a Geofencing class 2 and I.6.b Geofencing class 3. Please read the regulations carefully: UAS Prototype Regulation final.pdf Explanatory Note for the UAS Prototype regulation final.pdf

Best wishes from the SFCD (swiss federation of civil drones)

Severin (an enthusiastic Ardupilot User and Drone Pilot)

R-Lefebvre commented 8 years ago

Hi Severin,

I don't think this has been discussed before. Is that the only requirement we would have to meet, the height and geofence restrictions? Is it a simple matter of possible a special firmware upload for EASA users? Or would this need to be an absolute restriction in code that would affect all users around the world? (ie: one firmware for all). If it's just a special load for EASA users, I think that's possible. If they expect the security of knowing that no firmware is available which breaks the requirements, requiring only one firmware with this restriction for all, then I don't think we would do that.

AFAIK, there has been no work towards meeting this.

rmackay9 commented 8 years ago

Very interesting. As a development group, we couldn't take on the effort of getting the certification for the software ourselves but we could assist with the functional changes required to meet the specs.

From a software point of view it doesn't really sound that hard on the surface of it anyway.

@severinleuenberger would you want to be the "user rep" for such a project? I.e. you'd try to actually certify one of your drones under this new standard? I fear that if we're missing a user who actually wants to do this it won't happen easily.

squilter commented 8 years ago

Thanks for bringing this up. I had only been following FAA rules, and it is interesting to see how these rules are different. I have been interested in implementing geofencing into ardupilot. I think the discussion has two distinct parts:

  1. Non-technical Are we actually enforcing laws, or just informing the user about the laws? Should the user be able to override the checks? An important point here is that we don't want to frustrate our users and have them move to a different platform.
  2. Technical As Randy pointed out, the altitude restriction is not technically challenging. The geofencing is more challenging. The EASA rules talk about up-to-date geofencing, so a system is required to update the geofence data. Fortunately, I have already put some thought into this. See this document and this updated suggestion.

Also see #1056

severinleuenberger commented 8 years ago

Regarding the geofencing, there will be a centralized solution, where the fence-definition will be updated. There is nothing defined yet. But there will be soon, otherwhise the developers cannot plan and build solutions market available in 2017. We are in close contact with FOCA (https://www.bazl.admin.ch/bazl/en/home.html ) and will get more infomations from there. Other big developers like DJI must change their products as well and get it certified, if they plan to sell to Europe.

I will ask the board and our member from Swiss Federation of Civil Drones, if we get a group together, who plan to get an UAS certified. Of course I would support you here from the requirements point of view, when we will certifiy a plane or a copter. And ideally get a path to multiply the certification on other UAS.

hiro2233 commented 8 years ago

Hi @severinleuenberger, i'm interested to get and introduce UAS certification and international regulations in my country, Bolivia. There is a DGAC associated with ICAO, but there isn't a regulation for specific UAS right now. I'm a developer APM and i target Ardupilot system to be registered under the international regulation for commercial UAV use with local DGAC.

Please, tell me, what i need to become a legal certified agent?, are you able to give this certification for Bolivia?

Regarding geofencing and altitude, i think the best practice for integration are giving two options, the first, a firmware EASA as @R-Lefebvre comments and the second an external hardware integration, this one not limit the development for APM scene and continue grow up.

lvale commented 8 years ago

Tentative targeting for 3.5, because the EASA proposals are targeted for 2017

R-Lefebvre commented 8 years ago

Not sure if this is the best place for this, but maybe...

I've seen it suggested that the EASA regulations will also require UAV flight software to conform to DO-178B. Is there any truth to that?

lvale commented 8 years ago

@R-Lefebvre Not in the current proposal, but from the EU representatives I met I got the impression that for the larger and commercial UAVs that (and other) requirements might be needed to get an airworthiness certificate

R-Lefebvre commented 8 years ago

Ok, thanks. Somebody on RCG suggested that no drones larger than 250g will be legal to fly for any purpose unless they meet DO-178B, in both Europe and the US. So just fearmongering? The person who stated it has a history of trolling, but I just wanted to check.

lvale commented 8 years ago

@R-Lefebvre Then you also have DO254 and being even more picky they could also go with ARINC825 .... :)

aercamti commented 8 years ago

As far as timing goes, the "Prototype" Regulations currently state: Article 14 Applicability

  1. As from [2 years after entry into force of this Regulation — estimate 2019], economic operators and UASs placed on the market shall comply with this Regulation.
  2. UASs placed on the market before [2 years after entry into force of this Regulation — 2019] and having a mass of 250 g or less, including payload, are deemed to be classified as class 0 as defined in Appendix I.2 and can continue to be operated according to operational subcategory A0 defined in UAS.OPEN.60.
  3. As from [3 years after entry into force of this Regulation — estimate 2020], all UA shall be operated in accordance with this Regulation. ...
aercamti commented 8 years ago

I am glad that these issues are brought up here. (Not because I like it, but because it will be something that we'll need to deal with...). Here are some brief excerpt from the EU Prototype regulations which seem relevant (for those who do not care to wade through all 72 pages).

The expected product requirements are outlined from page 29 onward of this document: https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/UAS%20Prototype%20Regulation%20final.pdf

Per appendix I.4 (e) a system (Class 2) needs to include (excerpt):

P. 31 has Appendix I.5 - excerpt:

The details of the geofencing requirements referenced above are on p. 33 of the document linked above. Hope this helps.

IamPete1 commented 3 years ago

I suspect the regulations have changed significantly, maybe we should close this and open a fresh issue with the latest info.

aercamti commented 3 years ago

Ok, fair enough. Better to make sure that any pending adaptation match the current regs, which spell out details and are in force.