Please enter your email address.You will receive a link to create a new password via email.
Help us improving SAMWISE. Any comment or suggestion is welcome!
The adjacent airspace considerations deal with the risk posed by a loss of control of the operation resulting in an infringement of adjacent areas on the ground and/or adjacent airspace. Adequate requirements shall be fulfilled to mitigate such risk, especially when adjacent areas deal with gathering of people, populated environment or high density airspace classes
This username is now active!
Before you can access your account, you need to confirm your email address.
Please check your inbox and click the activation link.
(a) To assess the integrity of this OSO, the applicant determines:
(b) The lowest integrity level should be considered for those cases where a UAS equipment has only a partial environmental qualification
and/or a partial demonstration by similarity and/or parts with no qualification at all.
(a) This OSO addresses the risk of human errors which may affect the safety of the operation if not prevented or detected and recovered in a
Note: the flight envelope protection is excluded from this OSO since it is specifically covered by OSO #18.
(b) This OSO covers:
(a) Unmanned Aircraft (UA) are designed with a flight envelope that describes its safe performance limits with regard to minimum and
maximum operating speeds, and operating structural strength.
(b) Automatic protection of the flight envelope is intended to prevent the remote pilot from operating the UA outside its flight envelope. If
the applicant demonstrates that the remote-pilot is not in the loop, this OSO is not applicable.
(c) UAS implementing such automatic protection function will ensure the UA is operated within an acceptable flight envelope margin even in
the case of incorrect remote-pilot control input (human error).
(d) UAS without automatic protection function are susceptible to incorrect remote-pilot control input (human error) which can result in loss
of the UA if the designed performance limits of the aircraft are exceeded.
(e) Failures or development errors of the flight envelope protection are addressed in OSOs #5, #10 and #12.
(a) For the purpose of this assessment, the expression “fit to operate” should be interpreted as physically and mentally fit to perform duties
and discharge responsibilities safely.
(b) Fatigue and stress are contributory factors to human error. Therefore, to ensure vigilance is maintained at a satisfactory level of safety,
consideration may be given to the following:
(a) This OSO applies only to those personnel directly involved in the flight operation.
For the purpose of the SORA and this specific OSO, the term “External services supporting UAS operations“ encompasses any service provider
necessary for the safety of the flight, e.g.
(a) The objective of OSO#10 and OSO#12 is to complement the technical containment safety requirements by addressing the risk of a fatality
while operating over populous areas or gatherings of people.
(b) In the scope of this assessment, external systems supporting UAS operation are defined as systems not already part of the UAS but used
External systems activated/used after the loss of control of the operation are excluded from this definition.
(a) The applicant needs to propose competency-based, theoretical and practical training:
(b) The entire remote crew (i.e. any person involved in the operation) should undergo a competency-based, theoretical and practical training
specific to their duties (e.g. pre-flight inspection, ground equipment handling, evaluation of the meteorological conditions …).
(a) For the purpose of the SORA and this specific OSO, the term “C3 link” encompasses:
(b) To correctly assess the integrity of this OSO, the applicant should identify:
(a) The intent of this OSO assure the UAS used for the operation conforms to the UAS data used to support the approval/authorization of the
(a) This OSO complements:
An Emergency Response Plan (ERP) should be defined by the applicant in the event of loss of control of the operation.
These are emergency situations where the operation is in an unrecoverable state and in which:
The ERP proposed by an applicant is different from the emergency procedures.
The ERP is expected to cover: a plan to limit the escalating effect of crash (e.g. notify first responders such as medical services, police, etc…), and the conditions to alert ATC (where relevant).
M2 Mitigations are intended to reduce the effect of ground impact once the control of the operation is lost.
This is done by reducing the effect of the UA impact dynamics (i.e. area, energy, impulse, transfer energy, etc.).
One example would be a parachute.
One example would be a parachute.
M1 mitigations are “strategic mitigations” intended to reduce the number of people at risk on the ground. To assess integrity levels of M1 mitigations the following criteria have to be considered:
Criteria #1 : Definition of the ground risk buffer and resulting ground footprint, Criteria #2: Evaluation of people at risk.
In case a tether is used in the operations, specific requirements have to be met.
The Operational Safety Objectives (OSO) are a list of technical and organisational mitigations to be implemented fulfilling specific requirements,
depending on the level of risk associated to the operation.
The higher the level of risk, the more demanding the requirements to be compliant with.
These requirements are univocally defined given in input the values of GRC (Ground Risk Class) and ARC (Air Risk Class).
You can view the requirements associated to each combination of GRC and ARC by using the selection buttons.
In order to know what are the GRC and ARC associated to your operation start the SORA process, clicking here.
Tactical Mitigations are applied to mitigate any residual risk of a mid-air collision with manned aircraft.
Requirements on tactical mitigations depend on the airspace class in which the applicant wishes to fly.
Tactical Mitigations will take the form of either “See and Avoid” (i.e. operations under VLOS) or may require a system which provides an alternate means of achieving the applicable airspace safety objective (e.g. using a Detect and Avoid (DAA) system, or multiple DAA systems).
Specific requirements have to be met, depending on the maximum ARC class in which the operation takes place (ARC is mapped in SORA to different airspace classes).
For BVLOS flights, these requirements are divided into 7 categories:
VLOS/EVLOS is considered an acceptable Tactical Mitigation for collision risk for all ARC levels.
However, the operator is asked to provide details about how possible conflicts are managed, in particular providing a deconfliction scheme. This shall contain at least:
For VLOS operations, it is assumed that an observer is not able to detect traffic beyond 2 NM. (Note that the 2 NM range is not a fixed value and may largely depend on atmospheric conditions, aircraft size, geometry, closing rate, etc).
Therefore, the operator may have to adjust the operation and /or procedures accordingly.
Harm Barriers are optional mitigations aimed at reducing the Initial Ground Risk, that is the risk of a person being struck by the UAS.
Three different harm barriers are potentially available: