3rd ALIAS Conference Presentation 5-6 October 2015

1. Judicial approaches on
RPAS
Liability and
Automation in Aviation: the case of RPAS and Collision
Avoidance Systems
ALIAS Conference – Florence, 5-6 October 2015
Amedeo Santosuosso
Milan Court of Appeal
University of Pavia (I)
European Center for Law, Science and New Technologies (ECLT)
http://www.unipv-lawtech.eu/

2. Outline
• The ACAS Scenario 4 ‘ADS-B only data’
• The RPAS Sce_1 and 3: Theft of RPAS
• The RPAS Sce_6: RPAS fall on the Trevi
Fountain

3. Outline
• The ACAS Scenario 4 ‘ADS-B only data’
• The RPAS Sce_1 and 3: Theft of RPAS
• The RPAS Sce_6: RPAS fall on the Trevi
Fountain

4. • ACAS X emits an RA to the pilot
– at the same time the pilot realizes from ADS-B only
data sources (which are displayed only by ACAS X),
that
– the execution of the RA would lead to an accident
with a third aircraft C (with ADS-B data only).
A. The pilot chooses not to follow the RA, and it
results in an accident between A and B.
B. The pilot chooses to follow the RA, and it results
in an accident between B and C.
Scenario

5. OPTIONS FOR THE PILOT
The pilot chooses not to
follow the RA, and it
results in an accident
between A and B.
The pilot chooses to
follow the RA, and it
results in an accident
between B and C.

6. LAW SOURCES: a
EU law: Regulation (EC) No. 1899/2006 (EU-OPS)
Subpart B, art. 13, Crew responsibilities (OPS 1.085)
(f) The commander shall:
• be responsible for the safety of all crew members, passengers
and cargo on board, as soon as he/she arrives on board, until
he/she leaves the aeroplane at the end of the flight;
• …
• in an emergency situation that requires immediate decision
and action, take any action he/she considers necessary under
the circumstances. In such cases he/she may deviate from rules,
operational procedures and methods in interest of safety.

7. Italian Domestic law: NAVIGATION CODE
Art. 302:
“Se nel corso del viaggio si verificano eventi che mettono in pericolo la
spedizione, il comandante deve cercare di assicurarne la salvezza con tutti i
mezzi che sono a sua immediata disposizione o che egli può procurarsi […]
LAW SOURCES: b

8. OPTIONS FOR THE PILOT
The pilot chooses not to follow
the RA, and it results in an
accident between A and B.
This is against the law
The pilot chooses to follow
the RA, and it results in an
accident between B and C.
This is according to the law:
passengers, crew and plane
are safe
Supplementary duties: try to
inform C about the risk of
collision with B (assumed that
it is possible and that there is
time

9. Outline
• The ACAS Scenario 4 ‘ADS-B only data’
• The RPAS Sce_1 and 3: Theft of RPAS
• The RPAS Sce_6: RPAS fall on the Trevi
Fountain

10. Scenario 1 and 3:
Theft of RPAS during flight and its use for malicious purposes
The RPAS is flying in VLOS to get photographs and
• a hacker steals it and
• spoofs it with wrong GPS coordinates and
• uses it to film inside a military zone illegally
• consequently the operator discovers that it was
used illegally .

11. Legal background: a
Italian Domestic Law: Criminal Law
• Art. 682 Penal Code: “Whosoever enters places, where the access is
forbidden because of the military interest of the State, is punished with the
imprisonment from three months to one year or with a fine from fifty to
three hundred and nine euro, unless the act does not constitute a more
serious crime.
The provisions of this Article shall apply also to a property used as
headquarters of the office, department, or storage of materials of the
Administration of Public Security, to which access is prohibited for reasons of
public safety”.

12. Is there any general duty to report?
It does not exist any general duty to report for private citizens
unless the violation concerns particularly serious crimes.
Art. 364 Penal Code: “The citizen that is informed of a crime
against the State, for which the law establishes a life sentence,
and does not immediately report to the Authorities indicated in
article 361, he shall be punished with imprisonment up to one
year or with a fine of one hundred and three thousand thirty
Euros”.
Legal background: b

13. What should the RPAS operator do when he realizes that his
drone has been used to commit a crime?
• The owner of the RPAS is responsible as coauthor of
the crime with the hacker
• The prosecutor has the burden of proof that the
hacker and the operator had a shared plan
• The operator’s defense might have an interest to
demonstrate that he did not cooperate in the
criminal action neither materially nor in the planning
of the action

14. Possible defense strategies
• Not cooperating at all with the prosecutor
• Demonstrating that
– Reported to Police
– The GPS signal was apparently correct
– The RPAS apparently did not deviate from the
controlled way
– The RPAS camera did not show any pictures
taken in the criminal zone (?)
– …

15. Outline
• The ACAS Scenario 4 ‘ADS-B only data’
• The RPAS Sce_1 and 3: Theft of RPAS
• The RPAS Sce_6: RPAS fall on the Trevi
Fountain

16. Sce_6:
RPAS fall on the Trevi Fountain
• The light RPAS is engaged in surveillance
missions for the safeguard of the cultural
heritage.
• The mission requires flying very close to the
monument in order to scan it in detail.
• At a certain moment, the RPAS collides with
the monument and falls down, causing
damages to the monument.

17. Civil liability
Art. 2051 civil code: “Everyone is liable for the damage caused by goods that are
in its custody, unless the fortuitous case is proved”.
Three elements:
• The good: The majority of legal cases have held that the duty of control and
custody ex art. 2051 c.c. exists even in relation to things devoid of a proper
dynamism and however able to cause damages.
• The custody: the basis for liability resides in the relation between person and
good that can be identified in the power that the subject can exercise on the
object to avoid to cause damages to third parties.
• The causation: it shall exist a causation link between the good and the
damage. It is sufficient to prove that the good caused the damage.

18. • The damages as caused by the drone
• The owner/operator is responsible by the definition
• Unless it proves the fortuitous case
• What is the technical reason of the collision?
• Fabrication defect
• Mistake of the operator
• Sudden unforeseeable strong wind
Relevant facts

19. The chain of responsibilities
The higher the level of automation
The lower the level of human participation
The higher the responsibility of manufacturer
+Automation - Automation
The higher the level of learning capacities of the AS
The longer the time of use
The lower the responsibility of manufacturer
+ learning abilities -
- Time of use +
ManufacturerManufacturer
UserUser

20. Court of Appeal of Milan
European Center for Law, Science and New Technologies
University of Pavia, I
http://www.unipv-lawtech.eu/
a.santosuosso@unipv.it
Thank you !