Issue 40 Unmanned Systems Technology October/November 2021 ANYbotics ANYmal D l AI systems focus l Aquatic Drones Phoenix 5 l Space vehicles insight l Sky Eye Rapier X-25 l FlyingBasket FB3 l GCS focus l AUVSI Xponential 2021

72 In operation | FlyingBasket FB3 so in our development work we are identifying standards for safe antenna placement with different kinds of tower,” Rohra says. FlyingBasket is also in the process of developing further specific use-cases in other industries, with a focus on reducing some of the risks faced by workers in current tasks in which they don’t have the benefit of the UAV. Developing these use-cases, Rohra explains, is an exacting process in which, in order to get authorisation from a national aviation authority, the mission and the techniques used to carry it out must be described in detail. The risks must also be identified and mitigations laid out, and new regulations interpreted and complied with. The European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) governs flying in the EU, its regulations flowing down to the national aviation authorities in member countries. It puts commercial UAV operations into ‘open’, ‘specific’ and ‘certified’ categories of increasing stringency appropriate to perceived levels of inherent risk. These categories also take into account the weight of the UAV, the height above ground level at which the mission is to be performed, and whether the flight will be under VLOS, extended VLOS or BVLOS rules. Most of what FlyingBasket has done so far comes under the ‘specific’ category, with a significant portion of them under BVLOS conditions. The EASA’s open category covers the majority of leisure and low-risk commercial activities with UAVs, and has three subcategories based on the weight of the UAV and its proximity to people. These affect the requirements for training and qualification of pilots. The more restrictive specific category governs riskier operations not covered by the open category, for which operators need national authority authorisation unless a standard scenario is used. Standard scenarios So far, the EASA has defined two standard scenarios that make use of a new UAV classification system based on technical characteristics, a system that is part of the new regulations that came into force on December 31, 2020. (The new CE classes run from C0 to C6, and categorise UAVs by take-off mass, maximum speed in horizontal flight, maximum height above the ground and whether a remote identification capability is needed. The standard scenarios apply to UAVs in categories C5 and C6.) The first scenario, known as STS-01, covers VLOS operations at no more than 120 m above a controlled ground area in a populated environment using a CE class C5 UAS. A class C5 machine is not restricted in take-off mass, speed or altitude, and does not have to provide remote identification, although the STS-01 scenario contains a height stipulation. The second, STS-02, governs BVLOS operations with the UAV at no more than 2 km from the remote pilot, with airspace observers present and with the same height restriction over controlled ground, with the added rule that the ground must be in a sparsely populated environment. The UAV used for a mission fitting STS- 02 criteria must be a class C6 machine. Class C6 is like C5 but adds a horizontal speed limit of 180 kph. FlyingBasket’s missions may come under the specific category, but they have features that stop them from flying under either of the EASA’s standard scenarios in this category, which is why the company has to apply for operational authorisation. October/November 2021 | Unmanned Systems Technology A technician prepares to attach fresh battery modules to the FB3 in preparation for lifting tree seedlings in a mission for the Bavarian state forestry company FlyingBasket is developing use- cases in other industries, to reduce the risks to workers in tasks that don’t have the benefit of the UAV