An welchen Orten und in welchen Situationen befürchtest du konkret Kollisionen zwischen U-Space und Modellflug?
Hierzu darf man EASA Opinion 01/2020 zitieren, die voraussichtliche Basis für das kommende Regelwerk (Auszug, Hervorhebung durch mich):
" The principle is that ANSPs provide air navigation services (ANS) to manned aircraft while USSPs provide U-space services to UAS operators. Both ANSPs and USSPs are certified to provide their respective services in a safe, secure and continuous manner. Within controlled airspace, U-space airspace is designated by the Member States and
is dynamically managed by the ANSP. The safety of operations is guaranteed by the fact that
manned and unmanned traffic will not mix with each other as they are dynamically segregated and ANS and U-space services are not provided at the same time in the same volume of airspace. "
Und weiter:
"ARTICLE 4 — DESIGNATION OF U-SPACE AIRSPACE
This article is the ‘starting point’ for the management of air traffic in the U-space airspace, and therefore it is important to define the roles and responsibilities of all organisations that are involved in the U-space airspace.
The Member States have full authority on the designation of the U-space airspace, and therefore have the
power to decide how their airspace is designed, accessed, restricted, etc. As the U-space airspace can be established in either controlled or uncontrolled airspace, there is a need to take into account that there is already an organisation being designated to provide ATS services"...
" But when the
Member States designate a volume of airspace as U-space airspace,
there is a restriction (therefore it could be established as a restricted area): for UAS operators, to use U-space services to fly in that airspace; and for manned aircraft operators, to make available their position at regular intervals to the USSPs. The latter can provide manned traffic information to unmanned aircraft or can geo-fence the unmanned traffic around the manned traffic. The manned aircraft operator will also be informed about the U-space airspace and the unmanned traffic either by the FIS provider or by the USSP, depending on the specific implementation.
..."
ARTICLE 10 — NETWORK IDENTIFICATION SERVICE
This article clarifies that the identification service proposed in the U-space framework is based on the requirements for remote identification contained in Regulation (EU) 2019/945 to avoid requiring additional UAS equipment or capabilities. Nevertheless, the purpose of the service is complementing the original intent of the one in Regulation (EU) 2019/945. Whereas the remote identification in Regulation (EU) 2019/945 supports the authorities in aspects related to security and privacy, the network identification service within U-space airspace operationally supports traffic safety and the
traceability of the unmanned aircraft during its flight. Indeed, based on this information, the
USSPs can share UAS traffic information between themselves and therefore
provide traffic information to UAS operations. This service meets the objective of providing advice and information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of UAS flights. The content of the information is based on the list included in Regulation (EU) 2019/945 for consistency and in order to avoid additional UAS equipment or capabilities
in particular for the ‘open’ category. In addition, it is now specified that both
broadcast and network information shall be received. This is consistent with the upcoming amendment to Regulation (EU) 2019/945 and supports the redundancy under certain use cases,
although limited to certain cases of U-space airspace implementation.
ARTICLE 11 — GEO-AWARENESS SERVICE This article contains the service requirements when USSPs provide geo-awareness service to UAS operators. The geo-awareness contained in Regulation (EU) 2019/945 is related to the UAS capabilities and the requirements for the Member States
when they decide to establish geographical zones or for the UAS operators to follow and comply with the specification of these zones. This services aims to support UAS operators in fulfilling these obligations as it provides thisinformation (where it is allowed to fly and where not) with the level of accuracy and other performance for which it has been certified. By using this service in a U-space airspace, the UAS operators can discharge part of their responsibility related to this UAS operator obligation.
..."
...
"ARTICLE 14 — TRACKING SERVICE This article contains the requirements when tracking service is used as a supporting service to provide traffic information services and support, for instance, the flight authorisation service. T
his service can be used to track the real-time and historical telemetry data of the UAS if the necessary supporting infrastructure exists and the UAS is flying in the range of the service capability. The providers of such service can track UAS through the signal between the aircraft and its remote controller as well as through additional surveillance observations available for the same UAS flight. They can then fuse all this information to calculate/estimate a UAS flight track. To be able to provide this service, there is a need to have different UAS flight information sources. The performance expected from this service will be based on the performance of the UAS flight information sources and the
method and algorithm used for the tracking fusion. They shall be commensurate with the specific U-space airspace implementation and this shall be assessed during the certification process. In practical terms, this service receives data from the different tracking sources coming from the USSPs (e.g. e-identification), UAS or the CIS provider to fuse it into u
nique and reliable UAS flight tracks."
...
Daraus geht für mich klar hervor: der Mitgliedsstaat bzw. dessen competent authority regelt zukünftig dynamisch und im Eigenermessen, ob, wo und was (in der open category A1-A3) geflogen werden darf. Und wie sind diesbezüglich unsere Erfahrungen? Ich bin der Meinung: hier müssen Interessenverbände die Claims im Vorfeld stecken und nicht auf Goodwill der nationalen Behörden in der Umsetzung hoffen. Insbesondere, wenn die Behörde (wie z.B. in AT die ACG) privatisiert ist und neuerdings die Regeln für ihr eigenes Geschäftsmodell ausgestalten können! Dann geht es sicher nicht mehr um das eigentliche Ziel von U-Space (nämlich dem Betreiber von UAS und damit aiuch von Modellen (!)
größere Freiheiten wie z.B. angehobene Flughöhen bei Nutzung eines Fernüberwachungssystems zu ermöglichen), sondern darum, das Fliegen
überhaupt erst unter der Voraussetzung dieser Systeme zu erlauben! Und wer prüft dann z.B. die Verhältnismäßigkeit von Beschränkungen und klagt ggf. Rechte der Luftraumnutzer ein, wenn es keine Rechtsgrundlage (wie z.B. standardisierte Verfahren, BE im Rahmen des Verbands) gibt? Die Länder bekommen es ja zur Zeit nicht mal gebacken, die existierende Durchführungsverordnung europaeinheitlich umzusetzen. Von U-Space Level 2 ganz zu schweigen! Aber was ist das überhaupt?
U-Space Level 2 heißt, dass ab 2022 UAS (also Drohnen und Modellflugzeuge, wenn in Open Category unterwegs) in die Luftraumüberwachung eingebunden wird. Das erfordert die Flugplanung, die Definition von Flugaufgaben und
die aktive Ortung, die Bereitstellung von Luftrauminformationen für Drohnenpiloten und
Schnittstellen mit der Flugverkehrskontrolle (Air Traffic Control).
