Drone Regulations
5. Is there a distinction, in terms of regulation, between completely autonomous UAS and remotely-piloted UAS?
Bahamas
The Bahamas recognizes a RPA as an unmanned aircraft that is piloted from a remote pilot station. CAR OPS 4 goes on to define an autonomous aircraft as an unmanned aircraft that does not allow pilot intervention in the management of the flight. Despite the distinction in the Regulations, there are no separate regulations for completely autonomous aircraft and RPAs.
Bolivia
No, there is not such distinction; nonetheless it is mandatory for fully automated UAS to have the possibility to switch into manual controls (with the respective pilot) at any given time
Brazil
Brazil ratified the Chicago Convention, which in its article 8 prohibits self-operated aircraft or autonomous UAS; consequently, they are not authorized in Brazil by ANAC or DECEA.
Canada
Yes, the Canadian regulations apply only to non-autonomous UAS.
Colombia
In 2015 Colombian regulation started including RPAS as aircraft and gave to them a special regulation: Circular 02 of 2015, in which was only include RPAS and not the others UAS.
In 2018, regulation change modifying Circular 02 of 2015, in its place authority issued Resolution 4201 of 2018 includes all UAS and does not do a distinction in terms of regulation between RPAS and UAS.
Costa Rica
The Operational Directive distinguishes autonomous aircraft from remotely piloted aircraft. However, the Directive is only applicable to RPAS.
El Salvador
No. According to the RAC-VANT, UAS are all unmanned vehicles remotely piloted or autonomous.
Germany
No.
Guatemala
No. According to DGAC, all UAS whether piloted autonomously or remotely-piloted are regulated on equal terms.
India
While an autonomous aircraft is defined as a subset of UAS, the CAR at present only regulates the operation of civil remotely-piloted UAS. Operation of autonomous aircraft is strictly prohibited in India.
Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“UAS”) operations –Safety
Israel
Israeli law and regulations do not expressly make provision for completely autonomous UAS. However, it may be argued that a completely autonomous UAS would not be construed as “aircraft” as defined in the Operation Regulations which, as noted above, excludes from the definition of “aircraft” devices which are not radio-controlled. On the other hand, since the Operation Regulations were enacted in 1981, long before autonomous UAS became commercially available, it might be difficult to argue that the legislator had intended to exclude them.
Italy
Yes. During the flight of a remotely-piloted UAS the pilot-in-command must be present, able to intervene at any time and make the UAS landing for any need. During the flight of a completely autonomous UAS the drone must be able to pursue its mission following the pre-set route without the assistance of a pilot.
Kenya
There is no distinction in terms of regulation between completely autonomous UAS and remotely-piloted UAS in Kenya. Both are currently regulated under the CAA and the Rules of the Air Regulations and will, upon promulgation of the Draft Regulations be regulated under the CAA and the Draft Regulations.
Mexico
Yes. Mandatory rules “CO AV23/10 R4” only applies to remotely-piloted RPA. Autonomous aircraft (UAS) and RPA operated indoors are not regulated by mandatory rules “CO AV23/10 R4”.
Nicaragua
No.
Norway
The UAS regulations do not allow completely autonomous UAS which cannot be overruled by a pilot. Further, there is a regulatory distinction between UAS operated within the visual line of sight (VLOS) and UAS operated beyond the line of sight (BLOS).
Pakistan
Currently there are no rules and regulations governing autonomous URCSUAs in Pakistan. However, there is a general prohibition on flying aircraft without a pilot unless prior permission of the Director General of the CAA (“Director General”) is obtained and compliance is made with any conditions proposed by the Director General under rule 145 of the Rules. In respect of the regulations pertaining to unmanned remotely controlled airships, please refer to our response to question 2.
Panama
Yes, the distinction is made in the definitions’ section of the Regulations. In fact, the regulations mention in Section E, that the same applies to i) all the remote piloted aircraft systems (“RPAS”); (ii) all the RPAS of any weight, that were specifically designed for performing aerial work or cargo transportation; and (iii) all the RPAS’s operators and members of their crew, who desire to carry out commercial operations in Panama.
Philippines
Presently, the PCAR covers RPA operations only and does not yet provide for separate regulations covering autonomous UAS.
In general, while a UAS may be autonomous, an RPA (as a specific type of UAS) should be remotely-piloted. The definition of a UAS is broader than an RPA and means a powered, unmanned aerial vehicle, other than a model aircraft used for sport and recreation, which may be operated autonomously beyond line of sight of the controller but, in all cases, would be subject to remote control by the controller. On the other hand, an RPA is piloted from a remote pilot station by definition.
In particular, for non-commercial operation of an RPA, it can only be operated within visual line of sight and within day time.
As it currently stands, the UAS contemplated under the PCAR is remotely-piloted.
Portugal
In the definition of UAS included in section 2(f) of ANAC’s Regulation nr. 1093/2016 of 14th December 2016, it is clearly stated that UAS can be completely autonomous or remotely-piloted. However, the rules set forth in the said regulation are expressly aimed at remotely-piloted UAS and are being opened to discussion as to if they should also be extended to completely autonomous UAS (as we believe they should).
Puerto Rico
Yes, FAA regulations apply just as in the US. There is no current State regulation.
Romania
No, the legal definition of an “aircraft without pilot” (article 3.81 from the Code of civil aviation) refers both to the completely autonomous UAS and to remotely-piloted UAS.
South Africa
Yes. UAS are distinguished from autonomous unmanned aircraft by the fact that UAS are regulated by the CARs whilst such application does not extend to autonomous unmanned aircraft.
Spain
The main distinction between autonomous drones and RPAS is the capacity of the pilot to access the control to manage and pilot the aircraft at any time. Taking into account this distinction, under RD 1036/2017 only RPAS were regulated. Therefore, since no reference was made to completely autonomous UAS, these were not authorised to fly. Autonomous UAS were only allowed to fly in Spain for military activities.
However, with the entry into force of the EU Regulation 2019/947, no distinction or restriction applies to both. In this regard, no differences apply to RPAS or autonomous UAS in terms of requirements or specific authorisations because what will decide the number of requirements or safety measures to apply will be the risk to air and ground that the operation poses. For example, in the event of simultaneous autonomous UAS flights or swarms, this could even fall within the SPECIFIC category, or depending on the nature of the flights, perhaps a Light UAS Operator Certificate will be required so that the risk can be properly mitigated.
Switzerland
No; however, in general the operation of completely autonomous UAS is, in principle, not permitted in Switzerland, as currently a mandatory visual line of sight (VLOS) requirement for the pilot of a UAS applies. However, the FOCA may issue a special permit to exempt an operation from this requirement, if other users of the air space and people on the ground are not endangered (see Questions 6 and 8 below).
As of June 2020, the rules as per the New EU Drone Regulations will apply (see Miscellaneous and Most Recent Changes below).
Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“UAS”) operations – Safety
Turkey
Although there is an exclusive definition for autonomous operations in the Directive there is no distinction in terms of regulation between autonomous and remotely piloted UAS operations.
United Kingdom
No.
United States of America
The current regulations do not distinguish between completely autonomous UAS and remotely-piloted UAS. While current regulations do not specifically prohibit the operation of completely autonomous UAS, certain operational rules effectively limit the opportunity for the operation of completely autonomous UAS. For example, unless permitted by a Section 333 exemption, Part 107 waiver, or other special authorization, UAS operators (or visual observers in communication with the operator) must maintain a visual line of sight of the UAS during all UAS operations. UAS operators may obtain a waiver of this requirement under Part 107. Additionally, Part 107 requires (1) the designation of a remote pilot in command before or during the flight of the small UAS and (2) the remote pilot in command to have “the ability to direct the small unmanned aircraft to ensure compliance with the applicable provisions of [14 C.F.R. Chapter I].” This requirement is not waivable under Part 107.