Drones Are Not Guests in the Sky

The debate about coexistence in airspace is still shaped by outdated thinking: manned aviation is often treated as the exclusive standard, and unmanned aerial vehicles must conform only through restrictive exceptions. Given the highly automated freight transport, extensive inspection flights, and industrial surveying flights, this claim to priority increasingly appears anachronistic.

Unmanned aviation is progressively transitioning from sporadic demonstrations to a predictable, permanent segment of traffic that will likely account for a significant portion of future flight movements. This shift necessitates a fundamental rebalancing of the relationship among airspace users. A historical priority principle in classical aviation no longer applies to a modern traffic network. Nevertheless, the claim for equal access to airspace should not be confused with unregulated freedom: it requires reliable legal frameworks and comprehensive safety evidence from both operators and lawmakers alike.

Significant Friction Losses

The accusation that unmanned flight systems operate in a legal vacuum is factually incorrect. The European Regulation (EU) 2019/947 establishes a highly differentiated control system with the categories “open”, “specific”, and “certified”. Particularly for projects with an elevated risk profile, the certification requirement approaches the strict standards of traditional aviation. However, significant friction losses reveal themselves in the existing approval process. For regular operations beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS), operators must present complex risk assessments, technical redundancies, and operational evidence. Here, the industry’s legitimate criticism arises: Current law details risk factors minutely but has thus far offered too few standardized pathways to reliably transition from technical demonstrators to scaled regular operations. When unmanned aerial vehicles operated only sporadically, compliance with general aviation rules was feasible. As traffic density increases, this model loses viability. The traditional principle of “see-and-avoid” encounters objective limits when fast, automated aircraft and conventional aircraft share the same airspace.

Prof. Dr. Martin Maslaton is a specialist lawyer for administrative law and a Board Member of BVZD

A safe operation in high traffic density necessarily requires common standards. Mandatory electronic conspicuity, standardized data exchange, and automated conflict resolution mechanisms must be binding for all air traffic participants. Those who use a shared space must comply with the demands of a digital traffic control system. The airspace cannot be divided into separate areas in the future. Drone systems are not temporary guests but an integral part of air traffic.

And to make it perfectly clear: The more we fly unmanned at all levels, the sooner and more accurately unmanned aviation must ensure the same safety level. The key is technically standardized automation of flight. Those who demand traffic rights on equal terms must demonstrate that failure safety, emergency procedures, and conflict detection work flawlessly under all real conditions. Flight safety depends not on where the controlling person is located, but on who holds legal responsibility and how reliably the overall system operates.