Article 6 — UAS operators

Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/664

1. When operating in the U-space airspace, UAS operators shall:

(a) ensure that the UAS to be operated in the U-space airspace comply with the capabilities and performance requirements determined in accordance with Article 3(4)(a);

(b) ensure that during their operations, the necessary U-space services referred to in Article 3(2) and(3) are used, and their requirements complied with;

(c) comply with the applicable operational conditions and airspace constraints referred to in Article 3(4)(c).

2. UAS operators may provide U-space services to themselves. In such case, they shall be considered as U-space service providers for the purposes of this Regulation.

3. Before operating in the U-space airspace, UAS operators shall comply with the requirements of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 including, where relevant, hold an operational authorisation or a certificate issued by the competent authority of the Member State of registration and to comply with the operational limitations set by a Member State in any UAS geographical zone.

4. Before each individual flight, the UAS operator shall submit an UAS flight authorisation request to its U-space service provider, through the UAS flight authorisation service referred to in Article 10, in compliance with Annex IV.

5. When ready to start the flight, the UAS operator shall request the U-space service provider for the activation of the UAS flight authorisation. Upon receiving the confirmation of the activation for the UAS flight authorisation from the U-space service provider, the UAS operator shall be entitled to start its flight.

6. UAS operators shall comply with the UAS flight authorisation, including the authorisation deviation thresholds referred to in Article 10(2)(d), as well as with any changes thereto. The U‑space service provider may introduce changes to the authorisation during any phase of the flight and, in such case, shall inform UAS operators about them.

7. Where UAS operators are not able to comply with the UAS flight authorisation deviation thresholds referred to in Article 10(2)(d), they shall request a new UAS flight authorisation.

8. UAS operators shall provide for contingency measures and procedures. They shall make their contingency measures and procedures available to the U-space service providers.

GM1 Article 6 UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

OBLIGATIONS WHEN OPERATING IN U-SPACE AIRSPACE

(a) Article 6 covers the obligations for UAS operators when they operate in U-space airspace. Apart from making use of the required U-space services, UAS operators would need to ensure in advance that the UAS intended to be operated comply with the applicable capabilities and performance requirements, as well as with the relevant operational conditions and airspace constraints.

(b) To adequately make use of the U-space services, UAS operators may conclude a contract with an active certified USSP of their choice that provides the required set of U-space services in a given U-space airspace.

(c) UAS operators should submit their UAS flight authorisation request to the USSP and comply with the terms and conditions of the UAS flight authorisation once it is granted by the USSP. Certain conditions need to be met prior to the flight. UAS operators are not allowed to commence a flight until they have sent an activation request of the UAS flight authorisation to the USSP. They should ensure compliance with the terms and conditions associated with the UAS operation in the particular U-space airspace. In case they cannot comply with the UAS flight authorisation, UAS operators should amend their original request.

AMC1 Article 6(1)(a) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

UAS CAPABILITIES AND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

UAS operators should select UAS of a type that is appropriate to satisfy the UAS capabilities and performance requirements specified for the U-space airspace.

In accepting the ‘terms and conditions’ of the flight authorisation provided by their USSPs, UAS operators confirm that they have selected the appropriate UAS type that satisfies the required U‑space performance requirements.

GM1 Article 6(1)(a) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

UAS CAPABILITIES AND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

Depending on the UAS capabilities and performance requirements specified for the U-space airspace, not all UAS types are eligible to be operated. Technical support (e.g. providing technical characteristics of their products) provided by UAS manufacturers may be necessary in the evaluation of the UAS capabilities and performance requirements.

AMC1 Article 6(1)(b) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

MONITORING OF U-SPACE SERVICES

UAS operators should monitor, through a UAS flight, the availability of U-space services, and the information that may affect safety, such as:

(a) changes in the U-space airspace (e.g. dynamic airspace restriction or reconfiguration);

(b) changes to the flight authorisation (e.g. withdrawal, modification);

(c) traffic information, and especially traffic which may represent a collision hazard;

(d) non-conformance, when provided.

Accordingly, UAS operators should take appropriate action according to operational procedures and planned contingency measures.

AMC2 Article 6(1)(b) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

COMPLIANCE OF THE UAS FLIGHT

UAS operators should ensure consistency of the UAS configuration with the accepted flight authorisation, and should conduct the UAS flight to stay within the authorised planned 4D volume for 95 % of the time.

AMC3 Article 6(1)(b) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NON-CONFORMANCE

When relevant, and as per Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664, UAS operators should acknowledge receipt of the notification that they are non-conforming by using the means provided by their USSPs.

AMC4 Article 6(1)(b) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

U-SPACE SERVICES — UAS OPERATORS’ INTERFACE

When UAS operators intend to develop their own user interface upon the technical means that may be provided by the USSP (e.g. application programming interface (API)), they should ensure that the implementation of the proprietary user interface continues to satisfy the U-space performance requirements to which they contribute.

In such case, UAS operators should liaise with their competent authority to ensure that the overall acceptable level of safety (ALS) is not compromised by the complementary development activities. Even if, as per Regulation (EU) 2021/664, UAS operators are not directly subject to certification, they should consider Article 15(1)(a) and (b) of that Regulation and the related AMC and GM for the parts which may affect the safe provision of the required U-space services and information to the operator in charge of controlling or monitoring the UAS.

GM1 Article 6(1)(b) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

U-SPACE SERVICES — GUARANTEE AS REGARDS THE LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE

It is necessary for the UAS operator to be able to demonstrate that the required level of U-space service performance can be achieved for the entire duration of the flight. This may take the form of a service level agreement (SLA) or any formal arrangement made between a service provider and the applicant on the relevant aspects of the U-space services to be provided (including quality, availability, and responsibilities).

GM2 Article 6(1)(b) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

USE OF U-SPACE SERVICES

Except for compensating for unavailability or degradation of U-space services, for the purpose of data consistency and the provision of safe support to operations, it is recommended as best practice that UAS operators keep using the bundle of services of the same USSP throughout an activated UAS flight.

GM3 Article 6(1)(b) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

CONNECTIVITY

The UAS operator should establish a digital connection to the USSP whenever the provision of U-space services is required to support operations in U-space airspace.

GM4 Article 6(1)(b) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

MONITORING OF U-SPACE SERVICES

While it is assumed that the priority for UAS operators is to ensure the safe conduct of a flight, safety of operations relies on the capability of UAS operators to maintain their situational awareness. The information provided by U-space services is meant to reach an acceptable level of safety within the U‑space airspace, and needs to be adequately integrated throughout the operations.

A loss of link with the USSP is a safety issue per se as it disconnects the UAS operator from the U-space airspace, prevents it from maintaining situational awareness and eventually negatively impacts on the necessary decision-making to safely react to events that may dynamically happen.

The necessary monitoring procedure (e.g. degree, regularity, etc.) may vary depending on the operational constraints, and the roles and responsibilities of UAS operators (e.g. ‘hands-on’, ‘hands‑off’), controls mock-up, etc.).

U-space services and information to the operator in charge of controlling or monitoring the UAS.

GM5 Article 6(1)(b) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

U-SPACE SERVICES — UAS OPERATORS’ INTERFACE

The inadequate implementation of the interfaces with, or the improper use of, the U-space services may impair (e.g. by introducing latencies) the overall performance to an extent which may ultimately compromise the safety of operations within the U-space airspace. It is expected that the user interface that could be privately developed by UAS operators guarantee the satisfaction of the performance requirements defined for the U-space airspace (i.e. do not alter the performance) and the provision of U-space service information, down to the human operator in charge of operating the UAS.

Nevertheless, the responsibility of UAS operators is:

(a) limited to the continued satisfaction of the U-space performance requirements to which they contribute, according to the intended system and UAS operators’ user interface implementation;

(b) commensurate with the level of risk that may be introduced locally.

The technical assessment could be conducted and completed through the specified activities in order to comply with Regulation (EU) 2019/947.

AMC1 Article 6(1)(c) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS

UAS operators should handle the operation of the UAS flight as per the operating instructions established for the U-space airspace and provided by the USSP.

AMC2 Article 6(1)(c) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

EMERGENCY SITUATION

UAS operators should use the means at their disposal (e.g. built in the UAS and/or provided by the USSP) to declare an emergency when the UAS flight becomes non-compliant with the applicable U‑space airspace operational conditions or constraints, or facing an event, to an extent which may result in hazards to other operations performed in the U-space airspace.

GM1 Article 6(1)(c) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS

The operating instructions originate from the operational conditions and airspace constraints specified for the U-space airspace, and further refined and complemented by the procedures elaborated by the other U-space stakeholders (USSPs, ATS providers, etc.).

GM2 Article 6(1)(c) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

UAS EMERGENCY STATUS

UAS operators may support the alternative proposed in GM1 to Article 8(2)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664 to compensate for the potential lack of automatic transmission of the UAS emergency status.

GM1 Article 6(3) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

UAS OPERATORS — SORA AND AIR RISK CLASS

Even if operations are intended to be performed in U-space airspace, the specific operations risk assessment (SORA) should still be carried out as per Regulation (EU) 2019/947. Regarding the evaluation of the air risk, UAS operators are entitled to take credit for their SORA of the residual air risk class (ARC) determined through the U-space airspace risk assessment as per AMC1 to Article 3(4) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664.

The Member State that designates the U-space airspace may define additional, more demanding performance requirements than the tactical mitigations performance requirements (TMPR), otherwise the U-space airspace performance requirements are less demanding and UAS operators should consider whichever is the most stringent. The UAS operator should demonstrate to the competent authority with sufficient evidence that it fulfils the U-space performance requirements or the required TMPR as per the SORA application, whichever is the most demanding.

GM2 Article 6(3) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

UAS OPERATIONS IN RESTRICTED GEOGRAPHICAL ZONES

UAS operators may operate in restricted UAS geographical zones (as per Article 15(3) of Regulation (EU) 2019/947) provided they have obtained a specific authorisation. In accepting the ‘terms and conditions’ of the flight authorisation provided by their USSP, UAS operators confirm that they have been authorised to perform operations within restricted UAS geographical zones.

AMC1 Article 6(5) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

UAS FLIGHT AUTHORISATION

The UAS operator should activate the UAS flight authorisation before the take-off, and end it as soon as possible after landing.

In case of operations that involve multiple take-offs and landings, the UAS flight authorisation should be activated once before the first take-off, and should be ended only after the last landing.

GM1 Article 6(5) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

ACTIVATION OF THE UAS FLIGHT AUTHORISATION

The UAS operator is expected to start the operation without undue delay after receiving the activation confirmation from the USSP. Time constraints for the specific airspace used may be established by the Member Sate that designates the U-space airspace.

AMC1 Article 6(7) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

FLIGHT AUTHORISATION PLANNING AND DEVIATION THRESHOLD

UAS operators should plan the UAS flight to stay within a planned 4D volume. Flying outside the planned 4D volume is to be an exceptional event for less than 5 % of the time. The size of the volume should allow for gusts of wind and other likely sources that could cause deviation.

When UAS operators do not consider it possible to appropriately perform the flight within the authorised, planned 4D volume, including the deviation threshold, for 95 % of the time (e.g. based on degraded environmental conditions, or operational constraints), they should replan their flight accordingly (e.g. extended boundaries) and request a new UAS flight authorisation.

AMC1 Article 6(8) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

CONTINGENCY MEASURES AND PROCEDURES

UAS operators should describe their contingency measures and procedures within the contractual agreement with the USSPs.

In addition, UAS operators should detail for each flight in their flight authorisation requests the planned contingency measures (e.g. alternative routes, emergency landing sites).

AMC2 Article 6(8) UA operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

CONTINGENCY IN CASE OF DEGRADATION OR A LOSS OF THE USSP SERVICES

To prevent risking safety in case of degradation or a loss of the USSP services during the operations, UAS operators should safely end any active UAS flight as soon as possible, except when they have duly demonstrated to their competent authority that the continuation of the operation will not pose a hazard to the other operations performed in the U-space airspace.

GM1 Article 6(8) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

CONTINGENCY MEASURES AND PROCEDURES

The contingency measures and procedures may be derived from those specified in point (6)(d) of Appendix 5 to the Annex to Regulation (EU) 2019/947. They may also address the following conditions:

(a) sudden, total or partial unavailability of the U-space airspace,

(b) restriction or revocation of the UAS flight authorisation,

(c) unlawful interference,

(d) engine failure,

(e) loss of signal,

(f) loss of control,

(g) loss of payload,

(h) loss of power,

(i) loss of energy reserves,

(j) adverse weather conditions,

(k) foreign object debris (FOD),

(l) unidentified aircraft entering protected volume around the UAS,

(m) unavailability of landing area.

GM2 Article 6(8) UAS operators

ED Decision 2022/022/R

CONTINGENCY IN CASE OF DEGRADATION OR A LOSS OF THE USSP SERVICES

UAS operators may evaluate the degradation or the loss of the USSP services in the context of their operations in the U-space airspace and establish appropriate contingency measures against the resulting hazards.

A hazard assessment should consider:

(a) the impact and severity of the hazards on own operations;

(b) the impact and severity of the hazards on other nearby operations;

(c) the operational environment;

(d) other additional operational mitigation measures, if applicable.

UAS operators should provide USSPs with actions to be taken in the event of a loss or degradation of the U-space services which could result in an overall reduction of safety or pose a risk to nearby U‑space operations, and action would be required to be taken by another UAS operator. These actions may be contained within an operator’s contingency plan. UAS operators should ensure the effective coverage of the contingency measures in case of degradation or loss of USSP services, especially for services used in flight such as:

(e) the inability to receive information on dynamic airspace reconfiguration and/or modifications to the UAS flight authorisation;

(f) a loss of availability of traffic information data;

(g) sharing of contingencies (as applicable).

Article 7 — U-space service providers

Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/664

1. U-space services shall be provided by legal persons certified as U-space service providers in accordance with Chapter V.

2. U-space service providers shall be responsible for providing the UAS operators with the U-space services referred to in Article 3(2) and (3) during all phases of operations in that U-space airspace.

3. U-space service providers shall establish arrangements with the air traffic services providers to ensure adequate coordination of activities, as well as the exchange of relevant operational data and information in accordance with Annex V.

4. U-space service providers shall handle air traffic data without discrimination, restriction or interference, irrespective of their sender or receiver, content, application or service, or terminal equipment.

5. U-space service providers shall:

(a) exchange any information that is relevant for the safe provision of U-space services amongst themselves;

(b) adhere to a common secure interoperable open communication protocol and use the latest information made available in accordance with Annex II;

(c) ensure that the information is exchanged in accordance with the data quality, latency and protection requirements set out in Annex III;

(d) ensure the access to and the necessary protection of the information exchanged.

6. U-space service providers shall report the following to the competent authority:

(a) the starting of operations after receiving the certificate referred to in Article 14;

(b) the ceasing and subsequent restart of operations, if applicable.

GM1 Article 7 U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

(a) A U-space service provider (USSP) is a new entity established by this Regulation. It refers to an organisation that is certified by a competent authority to provide U-space services in the U‑space airspace.

(b) USSPs are responsible for implementing and providing the bundle of U-space services required by the Member State that designates the U-space airspace.

(c) Entities that are not willing to deliver all required U-space services may act as subcontractors to a USSP that provides all required U-space services.

(d) A USSP may subcontract the provision of some or all U-space services to other entities if they remain under its management control. There can also be associations between USSPs or equivalent mechanisms, if it is clear that there is a single certified entity responsible for providing the required bundle of U-space services to UAS operators. When required, the USSP should ensure that the competent authority is given access to any subcontracted organisation and data relevant to support the USSP certification.

(e) USSPs ensure coordination with CIS providers or, when designated, the single CIS provider.

(f) USSPs ensure operational coordination with other USSPs that are active in the same U-space airspace and the relevant ATSPs. Only some specific information is expected to be sent back to the relevant ATC unit.

(g) USSPs support the dissemination and acknowledgment of notification on dynamic airspace reconfiguration, in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2021/664.

(h) USSPs support the competent authority in recording and making operational data available to support the conduct of safe operations in the U-space airspace, as laid out in the AMC and GM to Article 18(f) and (h) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664.

AMC1 Article 7(2) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

BUNDLE OF U-SPACE SERVICES

The set of U-space services required to be provided by the USSP to UAS operators is defined by the Member State for each designated U-space airspace. To facilitate the provision of U-space services to UAS operators, a USSP should provide the U-space services required in the U-space airspace served in a form of bundle, which may encompass:

(a) four services as per Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664;

(b) five or six services when considering the provisions of Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664.

AMC2 Article 7(2) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

USSP–UAS OPERATOR INTERFACES

The USSP should provide UAS operators with interfaces, together with the U-space services. The interfaces and functionalities should at least allow UAS operators to:

(a) properly use the U-space services;

(b) be provided with the operational instructions applying to the U-space airspace;

(c) get access to the UAS operator’s operational records;

(d) declare a contingency or an emergency;

(e) acknowledge any non-conformance, when the conformance monitoring service is required, as per Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664.

AMC3 Article 7(2) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

UAS OPERATOR SITUATIONAL AWARENESS

The USSP should ensure that the information that may affect safety is efficiently conveyed to UAS operators, allowing them to take the necessary, appropriate actions to ensure safety in a timely manner.

Accordingly, the USSP should:

(a) identify the information that supports safety, and requires immediate UAS operator awareness;

(b) reduce the risk of missing the information that supports safety by deploying means to ensure that the attention of UAS operators will be appropriately attracted.

AMC4 Article 7(2) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

DEGRADATION OF USSP SERVICES

The USSP should inform without undue delay its UAS operators, other USSPs within the same U-space airspace, and ATSPs when necessary, about the degradation of its services (including degradation that results from the unavailability of CIS providers or ATSPs).

The degradation of USSP services should be supported by procedures or contingency measures to be jointly established with UAS operators.

AMC5 Article 7(2) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

U-SPACE AIRSPACE OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS

The USSP should develop and provide UAS operators with instructions on how to conduct operations within the U-space airspace. The operating instructions should encompass:

(a) the transcription of the operational conditions and airspace constraints that originate from the U-space airspace risk assessment;

(b) a user guide documenting how UAS operators should configure and use USSP services;

(c) when the services are provided through an API, the user guide should also contain the technical instructions and requirements to the UAS operators to ensure the continued satisfaction of the performance requirements and overall safety;

(d) recommendations ensuring the security of the exchange;

(e) the normal, contingency, and emergency procedures related to U-space services, to be applied by UAS operators.

GM1 Article 7(2) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

CONNECTIVITY

Regulation (EU) 2021/664 assumes that the U-space is a connected environment. A connected environment refers to any digital connection that meets the requirements established by the USSP for the provision of the U-space services in question. A connected environment is not restricted to internet-based connectivity, although the vast majority of connections between a USSP and a UAS operator are expected to be internet based.

Therefore:

(a) U-space information is exchanged in a machine-readable format to support the necessary exchange of data among the U-space actors concerned; and

(b) operations in the U-space airspace require the UAS operator to establish a connection to a USSP.

GM2 Article 7(2) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

USSP–UAS OPERATOR INTERFACES

The USSP may have various means to develop and provide UAS interfaces, such as interfaces relying on mobile, web or PC applications, and/or application programming interfaces (API). The solution retained is expected to ensure that the performance requirements are met, and the availability of the services is ensured.

GM3 Article 7(2) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE IMMEDIATE AWARENESS

Safety-critical information, which may require the UAS operators’ immediate awareness, may concern the following:

(a) degradation of services;

(b) changes in the configuration of the U-space airspace (e.g. dynamic airspace restriction or reconfiguration);

(c) changes in the flight authorisation;

(d) new emergency in the proximity of the UAS flight;

(e) non-conformance, when relevant for the U-space airspace;

(f) incoming manned traffic which may eventually result in a conflict with the UAS flight trajectory;

(g) infringement of the UAS flight authorisation;

(h) detection of rogue traffic in the proximity or within the volume where the UAS flight is performed.

GM4 Article 7(2) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

ALERTING MEANS

Safety relies on the timely reaction of UAS operators to situational changes that may dynamically occur in the U-space airspace throughout the UAS flight. Inappropriate UAS operator reaction due to a lack of sufficient awareness may ultimately compromise safety. Moreover, UAS operations require UAS operators to additionally manage operational information than just strict UAS flight data. In some conditions, especially where high workload is involved, UAS operators may have limited capability to focus their attention on monitoring U-space services in order to detect new relevant information.

Regardless of being served by the USSP through a separate user interface/application or through direct application programming interface (API), UAS operators need to be clearly alerted to new, safety-critical information during all phases of flight (flight preparation, preflight, in flight and postflight).

To effectively attract the attention of UAS operators, the USSP may either implement or provide the supporting means of various techniques such as:

(a) visual annunciations (e.g. flashing red),

(b) aural annunciations (e.g. sounds or voice),

(c) telephony voice messages,

(d) telephony text messages, coupled with haptic sense.

To maximise the effectiveness of the attention-getter, it is recommended that the USSP rely on more than one means for raising awareness on safety-critical information that requires immediate attention.

The implementation of the necessary alerting means should ensure the use of appropriate designs that effectively raise the attention of UAS operators while preventing undue nuisance and distraction that could impair the safe conduct of UAS operations.

GM5 Article 7(2) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

DEGRADATION OF USSP SERVICES

It is recommended as best practice that the USSP disseminate the information on the degradation of its services within 30 seconds.

GM6 Article 7(2) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

UAS OPERATIONAL RECORDS

It is recommended as best practice that USSPs provide UAS operators with a method to access a copy of their data related to the U-space services required by a Member State (e.g. history of the flight authorisations as well as non-normal conditions). Any requested piece or set of data should be electronically exported and provided to the UAS operators in a machine-readable format.

AMC1 Article 7(3) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN USSPs AND ATSPs

For U-space airspace established in controlled airspace, the USSP should establish a written agreement with the relevant ATSP covering the coordination of activities, as well as the exchange of relevant operational data and information. The coordination activities between the USSP and the ATSP should cover:

(a) the emergency management plan as per Article 15(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664, including contingency and emergency conditions involving manned and unmanned aircraft;

(b) the exchange of relevant operational data and information, if not provided through the CIS, as per point ATS.OR.127 of Regulation (EU) 2017/373 amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/665;

(c) the dynamic airspace reconfiguration procedure, laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2021/664, and in accordance with point ATS.TR.237 of Regulation (EU) 2017/373 amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/665, in identifying the means to:

(1) receive the dynamic airspace reconfiguration requests from the ATC unit;

(2) notify in a timely manner the ATC unit about the presence of UAS special operations within the designated U-space airspace as per AMC2 to point ATS.TR.237(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/373 amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/665;

(3) notify the ATC unit once the airspace reconfiguration has been implemented, as per the conditions addressed in the AMC and GM to Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2021/664;

(4) alert the ATC unit in case of unavailability of the link with the USSP;

(5) alert the ATC unit in case a relevant non-conformance is identified in the U-space airspace, when the conformance monitoring service is required, and as per Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664.

GM1 Article 7(3) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN USSPs AND ATSPs

Although the exchange of data and information between USSPs and ATSPs is routed via the CIS in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2021/664, the coordination of activities (such as emergency procedures) will require the direct interaction and coordination between USSPs and ATSPs. Therefore, the following arrangement topics are not suitable to be delegated to a single CIS provider (when one is designated):

(a) normal, contingency and emergency procedures concerning UAS operations;

(b) nominal, non-normal and emergency procedures concerning manned aircraft operations performed in the U-space airspace;

(c) procedures concerning system or service shortages and degraded level of quality of a service;

(d) procedures, roles and responsibilities for both parties, as required by Article 15(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664.

It is recommended that USSPs use GM1 to Article 5(6) of this Regulation to formalise the arrangement with the relevant ATSP.

AMC1 Article 7(5) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

ARRANGEMENT AMONG USSPs

For the purpose of ensuring technical interoperability, all USSPs with an interest in the same U-space airspace should adhere to the same arrangement. The arrangement should ensure the compatibility of a USSP system joining the U-space airspace to allow USSPs to add the start/cease of the provision of services in the agreement or remove the start/cease of the provision of services from it.

AMC2 Article 7(5) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

MONITORING OF THE AVAILABILITY OF CIS AND ATSPs

The USSP should monitor the availability of, and quality of the exchange with, the provider of common information, or the single CIS provider (if designated), and ATSPs.

AMC3 Article 7(5) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

PRESERVATION OF DATA INTEGRITY AND QUALITY

USSPs should ensure for the data they are required to collect and distribute that:

(a) they do not alter the information, and preserve the integrity of the information received;

(b) they take appropriate measures to maintain the completeness, accuracy, resolution, traceability, timeliness, and logical consistency of the data.

AMC4 Article 7(5) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

REPORTING OF DATA QUALITY ISSUES

USSPs should inform the providers of common information, the single CIS provider (if designated) and other USSPs that operate in the same U-space airspace as soon as practically possible of any detected availability or quality issues with the data received.

AMC5 Article 7(5) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AMONG USSPs

A USSP should exchange and consolidate the following information with other USSPs that share the same U-space airspace:

(a) UAS remote identification, through the network information service, to support the continuous consolidation of traffic information.

(b) The status of the UAS flight authorisations to ensure the continuous synchronisation of the authorisations within the U-space airspace and adequate deconfliction.

(c) Traffic information, including e-conspicuous manned aircraft, as per point SERA.6005(c) of Regulation (EU) No 923/2012, when duly agreed among the USSPs.

(d) Non-conformance alerts trigged by their UAS operators.

(e) Notification of the degradation of their services.

(f) Contingencies and emergencies of their UAS operators.

(g) Other information as required by the Member State and/or as agreed among the USSPs, which may be necessary to ensure interoperability in the U-space airspace.

AMC6 Article 7(5) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AMONG USSPs — INTERFACES

(a) The exchange of information described in point (c) among the USSPs should conform to the requirements of Annex A to EUROCONTROL ‘Specification for SWIM Technical Infrastructure (TI) Yellow Profile’, edition 1.1, published on 5 July 2020.

(b) USSPs should document the services that facilitate the exchange of information referred to in Article 3(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664, as well as the related services regarding the safe provision of services, and should adhere to EUROCONTROL ‘Specification for SWIM Service Description (SD)’, edition 2.0, published on 15 March 2022.

(c) The documentation of services defined in point (b) should be made available to the public (e.g. service descriptions, interfaces).

(d) Compliance with points (a) and (b) should be directly measured against the requirements listed in the respective documents.

GM1 Article 7(5) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

ARRANGEMENT AMONG USSPs AND THE MASTER AGREEMENT

USSPs may use a common contract (the master agreement) that defines the technical indicators associated with the provision of services, acceptable and unacceptable service levels, parameters for data-sharing among USSPs, as well as dispute resolution procedures and actions to be taken in specific circumstances.

GM2 Article 7(5) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

MONITORING OF THE AVAILABILITY OF CIS AND ATSPs

The frequency at which CIS providers and ATSPs are monitored is commensurate with the level of risk the lack of information may induce. Indeed, while the unavailability of communication with the ATSP may represent a short-term threat to safety, the lack of availability of the UAS operator’s registration databases would only represent an issue in case of unresponsiveness to a query.

GM3 Article 7(5) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION ON E-CONSPICUOUS MANNED TRAFFIC

The receipt of information on e-conspicuous manned traffic, as per point SERA.6005(c) of Regulation (EU) No 923/2012, may rely on ground infrastructure (e.g. antennas) in the U-space airspace privately deployed by the USSPs. In order not to create an unfavourable situation and unfair treatment among the USSPs, the exchange of information on e-conspicuous manned traffic is subject to a specific agreement made among the USSPs.

GM4 Article 7(5) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION — INFORMATION MODEL

(a) U-space services may be provided concurrently by multiple USSPs in the same airspace. This requires the exchange of information and coordination among those USSPs, as well as between USSPs and other entities (such as UAS operators, ATSPs and CIS providers). Such exchange of information is expected to be based on open protocols and formats, using public, IP-based networks as transport layers.

(b) The exchange of information (and its models) should be described in a technology-agnostic way (e.g. in the Unified Modelling Language (UML)). The aim is to document the key aspects of a dedicated information exchange service at conceptual level.

(1) Operational and business context of the service:

(i) service requirements (e.g. information exchange, constraints, validation rules);

(ii) stakeholders that provide/use the service;

(iii) operational activities supported by the service (e.g. flight planning, flight execution, etc.);

(iv) relation of the service to other services.

(2) Service description:

(i) interfaces (e.g. based on request/response or publish/subscribe);

(ii) interface operations (methods to interact with the service, e.g. request a flight authorisation);

(iii) payload definition;

(iv) features (e.g. a flight authorisation object);

(v) properties/attributes (e.g. the identifier within a flight authorisation object);

(vi) data types (e.g. defining the identifier within a flight authorisation record as a list of characters and numbers);

(vii) associations (e.g. the relation of a flight authorisation to a registered UAS);

(viii) dynamic behaviour (and life cycle) description.

(3) Service performance level and validation aspects.

(c) The information exchange services described in point (b) may be realised in different technical implementation levels enabling an architectural approach based on one concept, allowing for multiple potential solutions.

(d) Consequently, different types of data frames might be in use to carry payload. A standard data encoding may be used to provide the service (JSON or ASTERIX on the example of traffic information).

(e) The data encoding should be mapped to the definition of the service payload. Furthermore, the service that provided the information on this data encoding should be mapped in relevant technical details as well, e.g. in the service interfaces and operations. EUROCAE ED-269, which establishes a conceptual definition and its implementation in a standard data encoding, may be used as an example.

(f) Provision of safe services

(1) In addition to the operational information exchanged among the respective USSPs, further information on the respective service’s performance (e.g. degradation of services) may be collected and made available to ensure the provision of safe services. Sufficient monitoring may support technical operations to be performed under controlled conditions. This includes ensuring compliance with the related data quality, latency and data protection requirements set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2021/664.

(2) The provision and exchange of any safety-relevant information should follow processes that are comparable to established standards (e.g. ISO 9001 series). Additional information that originates from these processes should be exchanged as well. This includes but is not limited to:

(i) service availability (planned or unplanned downtime, points of contact for technical and operational matters, etc.);

(ii) service limitations (degraded operations, regional constraints, known issues);

(iii) service integrity (security/safety incidents).

(3) Both operational and service performance information should be protected; technical and operational measures should be taken by the USSPs to ensure the necessary information protection.

(g) Protocol

Any information exchange should be based on a common open communication protocol, such as the transmission control protocol (TCP). As a minimum, the requirements documented in the SWIM Technical Infrastructure (TI) Yellow Profile, edition 1.1, published on 5 July 2020, should be met.

(h) Extension of information exchange services

(1) Information exchange services may be extended by the entities described in point (a).

(2) The extension of information exchange services, by changing their description (as described in point (b)(2)), should not jeopardise their semantic interoperability and standardisation across the Member States.

(3) The extension of the payload definition can be usually managed by:

(i) adding additional properties/attributes to the features;

(i) adding new features.

(4) The extension points for additional properties/attributes could be already foreseen in the payload definition, such as free text or a custom enumeration.

(5) If custom features are added by an extension, the association between the default and the additional features should always be managed in the additional feature.

(6) The description of the extended service should introduce optional elements (interfaces, operations, features, attributes/properties, data types, etc.) only.

For instance, if additional information regarding communication infrastructure is provided by an extended flight authorisation service, a new feature called ‘communication infrastructure service availability’ might be introduced. This new feature might be associated with a flight authorisation feature. The association should be designed without changing the flight authorisation feature, to allow the processing of flight authorisations by services that have no knowledge of the ‘communication infrastructure service availability’.

(7) The approach to the service description is laid down in the SWIM Service Description and the EUROCONTROL Specification for SWIM — Information Definition.

(i) Protection of information

The necessary protection level will vary depending on the type of the information exchanged. As a minimum, the requirements documented in the SWIM Technical Infrastructure (TI) Yellow Profile, edition 1.1, published on 5 July 2020, should be met. Additional protection should be put in place where applicable, especially when considering the relevant data privacy regulations (e.g. GDPR).

AMC1 Article 7(6) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

CONFIGURATION OF THE PROVISION OF SERVICES

After receiving their certificate, USSPs are entitled to deliver their services in any U-space airspace.

Nevertheless, the result of the U-space airspace risk assessment, and the related performance requirements, operational constraints and digital interfaces may vary between U-space airspace volumes. Therefore, prior to start providing services, the USSP should liaise with the local competent authority to ensure that the provision of services satisfy the performance requirements and constraints established for the U-space airspace where the operations are intended to be conducted.

When the USSP services are inadequate to fulfil the local conditions to an extent which may not ensure the safe provision of services, the USSP should undertake the extension of its certificate to demonstrate its capability to satisfy the complementary U-space airspace requirements and constraints.

AMC2 Article 7(6) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

SUPPORTING OPERATIONAL RECORDS

As soon as the operations start and until they are ceased, the USSPs should support the safety of the operations and the competent authority in charge of the U-space airspace, in recording and making available operational data and events that may be encountered. The type of this data and its retention should be agreed with the competent authority, but should be compatible with the dynamic reassessment of the definition of the U-space airspace.

GM1 Article 7(6) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

U-SPACE AIRSPACE — ONBOARDING PROCESS

Before reporting the start of operations to the competent authority, and in order to provide services in newly designated U-space airspace, USSPs may have to:

(a) coordinate with the competent authority in charge of the U-space airspace where the operations are intended to be conducted;

(b) coordinate and conclude agreements with the CIS providers (or, when designated, the single CIS provider) in that U-space airspace on data sharing;

(c) coordinate and conclude agreements with other USSPs in that U-space airspace on data sharing;

(d) coordinate and conclude agreements with ATSPs in that U-space airspace;

(e) configure and/or adjust the provision of services:

(1) to adhere to the common protocol that supports the exchange of information (e.g. among USSPs) in the U-space airspace;

(2) to satisfy the performance requirements and constraints of the U-space airspace.

GM2 Article 7(6) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

CONFIGURATION OF THE PROVISION OF SERVICES

The main items that may vary between U-space airspace volumes are:

(a) the required set of U-space services, which could encompass the provisions of Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664;

(b) the U-space services’ performance requirements and constraints, as per Article 3(4) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664;

(c) the common protocol(s) that support the exchange of information with the CIS provider and among the USSPs as per Articles 5(4)(a) and 7(5)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664 and its Annex II.

GM3 Article 7(6) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

REPORT TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY — TEMPLATE FORM

USSPs may consider using the template form below for the purpose of reporting to the competent authority the start and ceasing of the operations.

Letter to the competent authority

U-space service provider report to the competent authority in accordance with Article 7(6) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664

GM4 Article 7(6) U-space service providers

ED Decision 2022/022/R

SUPPORTING OPERATIONAL RECORDS

The operational records are meant to provide data to support the implementation of Article 18(h) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664, and the dynamic reassessment of the definition of the U-space airspace as defined in the AMC and GM to Articles 3(1) and 18(f) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664. The operational data and events that may be of interest to a competent authority are the following:

(a) dynamic airspace reconfiguration or restrictions;

(b) failure to implement dynamic airspace restriction or reconfiguration;

(c) volume of (e-conspicuous) manned aircraft crossing the U-space airspace;

(d) air proximity situation among UAS, and between UAS and manned aircraft;

(e) emergency declared by UAS operators;

(f) deviation (non-conformance) with the flight authorisation;

(g) over-conformance, when the deviation threshold may be too wide and airspace capacity wasted;

(h) detection of rogue UAS, or UAS used for malicious or unlawful purposes.

The information may be provided in terms of:

(i) volume/number of occurrences; and

(j) date, time, and location expressed in WGS 84 coordinate.

It is recommended that the USSP keep the records for a period of 5 years.