3rd ALIAS Conference Presentation 2015

3. Scenarios clustering and classification
• Scenarios are classified on the basis of three criteria, as
follows:
• the kind of damage produced by the RPAS
• the kind of area in which the drone is performing its
mission (outdoor non populated area; outdoor populated
area; indoor populated area)
• the kind of drone usage by the remote pilot (not malicious;
malicious)
• Such classification is the starting point to structure the legal
analysis that will be carried out in the next step of the Legal
Case application (Step 2 – Identify Liability Issues).

4. Actor – based legal analysis
• RPAS operator
• RPAS remote pilot
• RPAS/Technology manufacturer
• Other actors (depending on scenarios)

5. Legal analisys map (1)

6. Legal analysis map (2)

7. Legal analysis map (3)

8. Conclusions of the legal analysis (1)
The liability risk for RPAS operator, RPAS manufacturer and remote pilot is dependent on the
liability regime adopted in a particular country: it can be either strict or fault based liability
regime.
The legal analysis also highlighted that among the three main RPAS actors the RPAS operator is
subject to the highest level of liability risk (regardless of the liability regime), because there are
numerous grounds on which the RPAS operator could be held liable:
• Strict (no-fault) liability
• vicarious liability
• organizational liability
• statutory negligence
The RPAS operator may also also subject to the same international regulations as a regular air
carrier (Montreal, Rome and other international aviation conventions may apply)

9. Conclusions of the legal analysis (2)
• RPAS manufacturer would be only liable in case
it is possible to prove manufacturing, design or
warning defect of RPAS and prove that this defect
led to the accident (causal link).
• There is a medium risk that the injured party may
act directly against the manufacturer.
• There is also the risk that the RPAS manufacturer
is subject to a recourse of the RPAS operator

10. Conclusions of the legal analysis (3)
The remote pilot is not running any real liability risk as long as he is employed
by the RPAS operator.
Differently from the pilot of the manned aircraft, the remote pilot is in a
much more favourable position not only when negligent, but also when acting
with malice intentionally: different risk, different perception
So as concerns the remote pilot’s liability, if the remote pilot is employed by
the RPAS operator, the vicarious liability regime applies:
in case of remote pilot’s negligent behaviour, the RPAS operator is liable;
in case of remote pilot’s intentional or grossly negligent behaviour, the
remote pilot could be:
jointly liable together with the RPAS operator;
severally liable together with the RPAS operator;
Jointly and severally liable together with the RPAS operator.
So, unless the remote pilot acts with intention or with gross negligence, his
liability risk is evaluated as low.

11. Liability design measures – RPAS operator
Liability mitigating /displacing measure:
Care in selecting & training remote pilots
The risk of accidents is substantially decreased if the professional remote
pilots are performing RPAS missions, thus decreasing the risk of vicarious
liability for the RPAS operator
Liability mitigating measure: Rule
compliance in safety measure
management system and the organization,
management and delivery of RPAS services
This measure would decrease the risk of organizational and statutory
liabilities
Liability mitigating measure:
RPAS acquisition from qualified RPAS
manufacturers
This measure would help the RPAS operator to decrease the possibility of
accidents and give him warranties for the quality of the product
(eventually, the insurance coverage)
Liability mitigating/displacing measure:
Contracts with certified service providers
only
This measure would help the RPAS operator to decrease the possibility of
accidents and give him warranties for the quality of the service provided
(eventually, the insurance coverage)

12. Liability design measures – RPAS
remote pilot
Liability clarification measure:
Clarification of remote pilot’s tasks and
responsibilities
This measure would help to ensure the clarity between the tasks and
responsibilities between RPAS operator and the remote pilot
Liability displacing measure:
Standardization and certification of the
remote piloting as professional activity
This measure would ensure the same professional level throughout the
EU and would ensure the RPAS operator that he is employing a
professional remote pilot
Liability clarification measure: Official and
publicly available register of remote pilots
who are entitled to fly RPAS
This measure could ensure the RPAS operator that he is really employing
a professional remote pilot

13. Liability design measures – RPAS manufacturer
Liability clarification measure: Standards
and best practices for the RPAS
manufacturers
This measure would help the manufacturers to be updated on the best
technological state-of-the-art practices and be aware of (at least minimal)
standards of quality requested by each country (or throughout EU) as
concerns their product: this would help them in the case they will need to
use state of the art defence in court proceedings
Liability displacing measure: Accreditation
of RPAS manufacturers by qualification
entities
Such procedures would put an emphasis on the role of qualification entities
and the level of their duty of care
Liability displacing measure: Obligation to
inform customer on the operational
limitations applicable to its product
(applicable especially to the “open”
category of RPAS)
This measure could be used by the RPAS manufacturer as defence in case
he was sued for warning defect of RPAS
Liability mitigating/enhancing/displacing
measure: Emphasis on contractual
arrangements between RPAS manufacturer
and RPAS component(s) manufacturer
This measure would help the RPAS manufacturer (as producer of the final
RPAS product) to avoid liability caused by its low quality components
Liability mitigating measure: clear
contractual clauses with RPAS operator,
especially as concerns warranties
This measure would help the RPAS operator and RPAS manufacturer to
agree on what aspects of RPAS is whose liability

14. Main insurance related liability risks
1) Minimum coverage requirements (Articles 6 and 7) of Regulation, 785/2004 (750.000 SDR
for light RPAS) might not be sufficient to cover all damages caused by RPAS;
2) Third party liability insurance covers only RPAS (or its components) which are certified and
in line with all the regulations on safety and security: RPAS operator cannot insure RPAS
which do not match the regulations, and therefore should not even be used;
3) If the RPAS (or its components) manufacturer is not certified or even not possible to
identify, the victim may be unable to obtain any compensation;
4) A considerable problem is constituted by common aviation insurance exclusions, such as
electric and electromagnetic inferences, cyber attacks, sonic boom, and others
5) If RPAS operator wants to operate in more than one EU country, there might be a problem
of different insurance regimes and territorial limits established by national insurance policies.
This problem grows bigger when a RPAS operator operates RPAS in both EU and non-EU
countries.
6) Self-employed remote pilots should provide for their professional indemnity insurance.

15. Recommendations – RPAS operator
• Engage with qualified and professional remote pilot and crew;
• Make contracts only with accredited RPAS operator;
• Invest in the organizational quality of the RPAS services, providing a structured workflow,
specifying roles and tasks of each actor. Who does what? Who is responsible for what? Show
these processes and task-responsibility distribution in the Operational Manual;
• Make sure what exactly the insurance covers and check the compatibility of the RPAS mission
with the insurance coverage (if the mission involves high costs—for instance the restauration
work of inestimable piece of art—the insurance should reflect these costs (for instance,
should be higher in this case));
• Declare any accidents, incidents or claims related to the RPAS. When the declaration is
mandatory, failure to timely declare may preempt coverage. Moreover, declaring would
contribute to a more efficient RPAS insurance market, by providing data on RPAS accidents
and RPAS caused damages;
• Consider bargaining power with the RPAS insurer. Although certain contractual clauses and
conditions usually are not negotiable (such as the exclusion of electric and electronic
inferences), nevertheless the RPAS operator should make an effort to get a better deal.

16. Recommendations – Remote pilot
• Invest in professional qualification;
• Bear in mind that although the RPAS operator
is liable for remote pilot’s actions, the remote
pilot can still be sued or asked to cover the
damages.

17. Recommendations – RPAS manufacturer
• Make clear and well defined contracts with RPAS operators, especially as
concerns warnings, documentation and manuals related to RPAS. The same
applies to the contracts with providers of different components of RPAS
(require Technical Standard Order (TSO);
• Ensure that warranties are known to the customers when the RPAS is being
sold;
• Invest in RPAS safety and security. According to the RPAS User Group, as the
aviation insurance industry will not modify insurance exclusion clauses
concerning electric and electronic inferences, the RPAS manufacturer
industry should increase the technological safety of these aircraft;
• Address the drone identification problem. Manufacturer should embed an
identification method in RPAS, as currently it is likely that the owner of a
fallen RPAS will not be identifiable.
• Lobby for RPAS manufacturer accreditation and certification as the only way
to have insurance coverage.

18. Recommendations – RPAS regulator (1/2)
• General note: Define the legal and regulatory framework, establishing the roles and responsibilities
not only of the RPAS operator, RPAS manufacturer and remote pilot, but also of the other
stakeholders involved, such as the service providers, training organizations and
certifications/accreditation bodies.
• For the time being, different international and regional bodies—such as ICAO UAS Study Group,
EASA, SESAR-JU and EU Commission Directorate for General Mobility and Transport, ICAO RPAS
panel, FAA–are working on the topic and extreme attention should be paid to the harmonization of
the rules and principles that each of these bodies is promoting
• Establish a mandatory insurance for RPAS operators and raise minimal insurance coverage for third
party liability (suggestion is up to 5 million)
• Bridge the gaps between RPAS and general aviation, while paying attention to the specific features
of RPAS such as vulnerability to cyber attacks and electric and electronic inferences, and the
medium/low (with respect to the regular manned aircraft air carriers) financial resources of RPAS
operators. In fact the latter are often represented either by individuals or by small or medium
enterprises (SMEs). This task could also include the investment in training of these new members
of the air navigation services;
• Stimulate the industry to solve the problem of electric and electromagnetic inferences. This is a key
issue in the interaction between RPAS operators and RPAS insurers;

19. • Support international agreements to promote
internationalization of the remote pilot licence and
professional qualification;
• Establish clear and common international industry
standards for RPAS;
• Establish RPAS registry and make the RPAS identifiable;
• Establish a system for RPAS manufacturer accreditation;
• Invest in promoting RPAS services and in raising the public
opinion on this regard: RPAS services can only be accepted
and fully commercially deployed, only if they respect
fundamental human rights (privacy).
Recommendations – RPAS regulator (2/2)