Summary of "Briefing Dronowy - 14.05.2026"
Summary of the drone briefing (14.05.2026)
1) Opening, format, and Q&A process
- The briefing was led by Jarosław Rupiewicz (no longer by the usual director, Paweł Szymański, who was absent due to other duties).
- The session ran 12:00–13:00, and viewers were encouraged to ask questions in the chat.
- Answers not fully covered live would be published on the authority’s website in the ulzgov.pl/drony section:
- a “drone briefing” hub
- downloadable files after each meeting
- Questions outside their scope would be forwarded to relevant bodies (e.g., Polish Air Navigation Services Agency and other interested parties).
2) Key statistics (as of 6 May 2026)
- 489,000 UAV operators registered (in the ULC register / President of the Civil Aviation Authority register).
- 170,000+ registered pilots with A1/A3 competences.
- 16,000+ pilots in A2 (“over 16,000” in subtitle text).
- In April 2026, the average daily registration rate was 486.
- Registrations increased through the year so far, with a slight April dip possibly due to weather; May was expected to improve.
3) National legal changes: Aviation Law amendments (status and direction)
- Internal consultations on proposed amendments to the Aviation Law have ended; the project moved to further consultation stages.
- Timing for public consultation by the ministry was not promised, but inter-ministerial consultations are expected.
- The direction of changes was described as aligned with earlier drone briefings:
- an expanded list of operators carrying out operations “in the broad public interest”
- compulsory insurance provisions to be corrected and detailed
- administrative penalties to be revised to reflect demands raised over months
4) Hot topic: “Operational regulation” consultation (public + ministerial)
- The office received many comments (from users, directly submitted to authorities, and from other ministries).
- The office spent several days analyzing them and reported developing “good solutions” balancing:
- industry needs
- public-institution needs
- Department comments were sent to the legal department for processing, with updates expected soon.
- EU-level consultations are also underway regarding the operational incidents reporting framework (see next section).
5) EU consultations: reporting unmanned aircraft incidents (deadline June 1)
- Joint consultations with EASA / European Commission concern the detailed catalogue of events to be reported by UAV operators.
- Current reporting is described as limited to serious cases (injury, major damage, or disruption of manned traffic); consultations aim to clarify which events must be reported.
- The briefing encouraged EU citizens (and specifically Poland) to submit comments.
- Deadline: 1 June.
6) “Simplification process” of EU drone rules (EASA-driven)
A major explanation was given of how the EU “simplification” effort works:
- It started around July last year.
- Trigger: complaints that EU regulations were inconsistent/incoherent in parts.
- Goal: simplify without undermining safety:
- changes should be “cosmetic/urgent” where possible
- and should not destabilize the entire system
Poland/EASA involvement
- Poland positioned itself as highly active in EASA work and claimed influence due to its large operator base.
- Poland presented national solutions, including agricultural-flight derogations.
Timeline for changes (as described)
- May–June: consultations (Member State representatives)
- Summer: publication of an opinion (likely followed by public consultation)
- Autumn (~October): adoption by the EASA committee and publication in the Official Journal of the EU
Expected near-term practical impacts
- A new STS framework for agricultural flights (new STS TR reference).
- Replacement/removal of the problematic “controlled ground area” concept, moving toward population density instead.
- The briefing emphasized it is not strictly a fixed 1:1 value—operators should verify local population density relevant to the planned operation.
- Additional solutions intended to facilitate operations in the open category.
7) FAQ: extending exemptions (“sick leave”/exemptions)
The speaker addressed extending “exemptions” (described as “sick leave” in subtitles):
- EASA indicated Article 71 of the Base Regulation (Regulation 2018/1139) applies to manned aviation but may be applied to unmanned aviation as well.
- EASA encourages Member States to use these exemptions, but only under strict conditions.
Conditions emphasized
- urgent/exceptional circumstances or urgent operational needs (e.g., life-saving flights, restoring aircraft to service)
- no alternative compliant solution
- safety and environmental requirements must still be respected (noise/environment)
- no unacceptable market distortion/competitive harm (especially EU-wide competition concerns)
- generally time-limited (up to 8 months without further EASA evaluation); longer periods require additional approval
Enforcement note
- If safety rules are violated or the regulation is grossly breached, EASA can reject/withdraw exemptions.
- The briefing suggested coordinating with EASA for extensions to prevent gaps as some waivers approach expiry.
8) Specific operation categories expected in EU/regulatory changes (examples)
- Agricultural operations: STS03 expected to be clarified/expanded.
- FPV
- changes were described as reflecting influence from the Polish FPV community
- flights up to 250 g may be possible in A3 without an observer (under certain conditions)
- no completely new standalone EU paragraph was expected
- Public-interest derogations
- described as implemented nationally via amendments to the Aviation Law, hoped to be even more extensive
- Public-sector (“public interest”) exemption scope
- the President of the Civil Aviation authority is not said to individually verify each institution
- entities are expected to self-check whether they fall within a generally worded exemption covering a defined list of tasks (security, civil protection, critical infrastructure, crisis management)
9) Subcategory A3: discharges / operational details
- Discharges under category A3
- hazardous-material transport generally reserved for the certified category
- non-hazardous materials may be possible under special conditions/permissions in the special category
- examples: confetti, flowers, seeds for fruit growing
- “Controlled ground area”-like deviations
- currently not possible due to a 150 m limit requirement from recreational/industrial areas, etc.
- EASA is preparing a change allowing deviation with consent of the land manager
- the briefing clarified the permission structure must be aligned correctly (operator permission vs land manager request)
10) Procedure templates: Inop template for STS
- The EASA “Inop” template (standard template) is expected on the EASA website in 2026 (exact date uncertain).
- It could also be shared on the Polish site.
11) Case study: FPV/drone operations during the Italy Olympics
A Polish/EU-focused answer was given on how drones were managed during the Olympics in Italy:
- Italy created/managed multiple airspace zones for events.
- Coordination was handled under a single coordinator covering both manned and unmanned aviation.
- Operators used pilots with recognized EU competences.
- Flights were mainly in:
- open category with observers
- STS categories (STS1/STS2 mentioned)
- Reported safety incidents:
- a drone crash on a track between training sessions (no injuries)
- a drone nearly brushing a snowboarder, leading to discussion among drone operators and authorities
- Positive use:
- thermal imaging reportedly helped locate missing skiers and support rescue operations
12) Remote identification (Remote ID) requirements
Remote ID is required for UAV operations using ship classes C1, C2, C3, C5, C6.
- From 1 Jan 2024, UAVs in special category operations (notably C5/C6) also require remote identification.
Exceptions / no-Remote-ID cases mentioned
- class-marked drones C0 or C4
- tethered drones (in certain class contexts like C3/C5/C6)
- drones placed on the market before 1 Jan 2024, operated in:
- A1 (<250 g)
- A3 (<25 kg)
- private-use operations in A1/A3
The briefing also referenced specific regulatory points (subtitles mention Regulation 947—UAZ 50 and UAS Open 60).
13) PDRA/PDR support (predefined risk assessment)
The office promoted use of PDRA and PDR:
- PDRA = predefined risk assessment (JARUS-origin) adopted by ASA/EU process
- Operators still must meet all PDRA conditions and provide required documentation (e.g., operations manual and safety procedures)
- Goal: reduce the need for fully individual SORA-style assessments where PDRA applies
14) Competence validity, renewals, and exams
- After obtaining A2, validity of A1/A3 is said to be automatically extended to align with the A2 exam date.
- Renewal rules:
- A1/A3: valid for 5 years; extension typically requires retraining/exam depending on current status
- A2 and STS: require a theoretical exam at authorized examining entities when competences expire
- “Re-examination” option:
- EU guidance leaves decisions to Member States
- Poland (via survey) mostly requires pilots to repeat the full procedure
15) Practical operational system: Drony Tower / check-ins (PASP operations dept.)
A second contributor (PASP operations) focused on how to use the system:
- After the May long weekend:
- recorded check-in day: 18,317 check-ins
- the increase was interpreted as more pilots registering flights and flying compliantly
- Requests to pilots using Drony Tower:
- keep the phone number available during flight so pilots can be contacted in emergencies or due to sudden restrictions (e.g., helis approaching, military restrictions)
- if a pilot receives an emergency call but “rejects it” via SMS/auto-response, authorities request answering when possible
- “End” functionality in the app:
- users must consciously press “end” to inform others the flight is over
- GPS auto-end was described as not aligned with desired safety coordination (check-in should remain active for the flight duration)
- Integration with other systems:
- plans to integrate with Xed Cell / KID were described as under analysis
- database unification expected “as soon as possible,” but sharing pilot/operator info inside organizations is limited by legal/regulatory constraints
- Zone manager contact details:
- clarification was given on why contacts may appear differently between the drone map and the zone description
- operators were asked to report inconsistencies with detailed information
16) Q&A highlights from the live segment
- EPTR4 Bravo active zone coordination
- A user had difficulty determining whether coordination was feasible for low UAV flights.
- Answer: dynamic changes in military manager contacts can cause delays; raising floors for small UAVs is “not currently possible,” though it may be considered in future designs.
- Overdue checkouts percentage
- no number provided immediately; promise to verify in IT and share later
- Where to find draft operational regulation
- the project was reportedly on the RCL website; link would be added to the Q&A summary
- STS1/STS2 with lower-class drones
- possible in practice, but regulatory/class description inconsistencies in EU rules are the blocking factor
- manufacturer multi-class drones could be a workaround
- High ice density / low altitude
- indoor flying is not under EU airspace rules
- operations inside closed rooms can be done with facility manager consent and relevant procedures
- Drones “escaping” over the Baltic Sea
- reporting discussed via incident reporting databases
- issue described as partly “military matters” beyond civil aviation authority jurisdiction
- note: increased interference/disruption observed recently
- advice: use apps to confirm environment status and turn off GPS/control if interference worsens
Presenters / contributors
- Jarosław Rupiewicz – head of the Inspectorate for Standards, Notifications and Market Supervision (led the briefing; ULC context referenced)
- Michał Wiłosz(ki)/Wilanowski (subtitles indicate Michał Wiowski / Michał Wilanowski) – PASP operations department (Drony Tower / zone coordination / check-in procedures)
- Paweł Szymański – mentioned as the usual director but absent on the day
- An Italy representative – referenced for details on Olympic drone operations (interview contributor; not an on-screen video presenter)
- Polish agency representative (PASP/ULC-related) – participated in the briefing (name not fully captured in subtitles)
Category
News and Commentary
Share this summary
Is the summary off?
If you think the summary is inaccurate, you can reprocess it with the latest model.
Preparing reprocess...