Developing AWES Regulation

#1

We are all interested to know the scope of EASA consulting on how AWES should be regulated.
Is there any news on EASA regulation development we should all be aware of?

Open communication on this topic from AirborneWindEurope group, AWESCO, AWEC, BWN500 would be beneficial to the whole of AWES industry. (BWN500 is that their name?)

Any changes in remote piloted aircraft law or UAS law will affect every producer or operator of AWE systems.

FAA called for submission to an open consultation on AWES regulation a few years back. An open document called Tethered Aviation Con Opps 1.0 was submitted to the process. I believe the recommendations in this document upset a lot of single line systems operators. I’m not intending to argue against the safety of single line systems. I am happy to state the redundancy benefits of multiple line systems. For instance, Daisy prototypes are currently permitted for testing inside an active ATCZ.

I think this is the most recent amendment to the EASA remote piloted aircraft https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/NPA%202014-09.pdf

Ampyx have been great at sharing their role in investigating interaction with EASA
Ampyx are leading the field in their certification process and identification of where EASA regulation will impact AWES

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-1947-0_29

Current and Expected Airspace Regulations for Airborne Wind Energy Systems

1 Like
#2

As the primary author of TACO1.0, I am unaware of anyone “upset” by such recommendations. Aviation safety advances by open discussion.

The good news is that the FAA is not going to regulate us for now, up to 2000ft, unless there are serious mishaps we do not ourselves resolve. Its up to each of us to fly in a safe manner, and up to all of us to help each other fly safe.

#3

Highly localized issue.

It will, but the USA have only as much influence on the world as we give them. I’d recommend not dancing to their piping, as it’s more and more out of rythm. :stuck_out_tongue:

#4

US FAA and EU ICAO maintain safe airspace in harmony. There is no dynamic of wrongful “influence” to “recommend not dancing” to. If anything, ICAO will tend to be the more restrictive AWE authority, based on EU’s more densely populated conditions. That the US FAA has so far ruled to NOT specially regulate AWE owes credit to US AWE player influence. Let ICAO try to do better for EU AWE.

If a worthy US target is wanted, Google fits well. Not only have they skewed AWE R&D and PR, but they have recent criminal convictions in EU, including for cooking search results, which was observed to hold for AWE searches, where Google’s Makani venture dominated domain search results over Wikipedia and everything else.