Article 7 U-space service providers

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

(a)A U-space service provider (USSP) is a new entity established by this Regulation. It refers to an organisation that is certified by a competent authority to provide U-space services in the Uspace airspace.

(b)USSPs are responsible for implementing and providing the bundle of U-space services required by the Member State that designates the U-space airspace.

(c)Entities that are not willing to deliver all required U-space services may act as subcontractors to a USSP that provides all required U-space services.

(d)A USSP may subcontract the provision of some or all U-space services to other entities if they remain under its management control. There can also be associations between USSPs or equivalent mechanisms, if it is clear that there is a single certified entity responsible for providing the required bundle of U-space services to UAS operators. When required, the USSP should ensure that the competent authority is given access to any subcontracted organisation and data relevant to support the USSP certification.

(e)USSPs ensure coordination with CIS providers or, when designated, the single CIS provider.

(f)USSPs ensure operational coordination with the relevant ATSPs. Only some specific information is expected to be sent back to the relevant ATC unit.

(g)USSPs support the dissemination and acknowledgment of notification on dynamic airspace reconfiguration, in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2021/664.

(h)USSPs support the competent authority in recording and making operational data available to support the conduct of safe operations in the U-space airspace, as laid out in the AMC and GM to Article 18(f) and (h) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664.

BUNDLE OF U-SPACE SERVICES The set of U-space services required to be provided by the USSP to UAS operators isdefined by the Member State for each designated U-space airspace. To facilitate the provision of U-space services to UAS operators, a USSP should provide the U-space services required in the U-space airspace served in a form of bundle, which may encompass:

(a)four services as per Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664;

(b)five or six services when considering the provisions of Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664.

USSP–UAS OPERATOR INTERFACES The USSP should provide UAS operators with interfaces, together with the U-space services. The interfaces and functionalities should at least allow UAS operators to:

(a)properly use the U-space services;

(b)be provided with the operational instructions applying to the U-space airspace;

(c)get access to the UAS operator’s operational records;

(d)declare a contingency or an emergency;

(e)acknowledge any non-conformance, when the conformance monitoring service is required, as per Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664.

UAS OPERATOR SITUATIONAL AWARENESS The USSP should ensure that the information that may affect safety is efficiently conveyed to UAS operators, allowing them to take the necessary, appropriate actions to ensure safety in a timely manner. Accordingly, the USSP should:

(a)identify the information that supports safety, and requires immediate UAS operator awareness;

(b)reduce the risk of missing the information that supports safety by deploying means to ensure that the attention of UAS operators will be appropriately attracted.

DEGRADATION OF USSP SERVICES The USSP should inform without undue delay its UAS operators, other USSPs within the same U-space airspace, and ATSPs when necessary, about the degradation of its services (including degradation that results from the unavailability of CIS providers or ATSPs). The degradation of USSP services should be supported by procedures or contingency measures to be jointly established with UAS operators.

U-SPACE AIRSPACE OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS The USSP should develop and provide UAS operators with instructions on how to conduct operations within the U-space airspace. The operating instructions should encompass:

(a)the transcription of the operational conditions and airspace constraints that originate from the U-space airspace risk assessment;

(b)a user guide documenting how UAS operators should configure and use USSP services;

(c)when the services are provided through an API, the user guide should also contain the technical instructions and requirements to the UAS operators to ensure the continued satisfaction of the performance requirements and overall safety;

(d)recommendations ensuring the security of the exchange;

(e)the normal, contingency, and emergency procedures related to U-space services, to be applied by UAS operators.

assumes that the U-space is a connected environment. A connected environment refers to any digital connection that meets the requirements established by the USSP for the provision of the U-space services in question. A connected environment is not restricted to internet-based connectivity, although the vast majority of connections between a USSP and a UAS operator are expected to be internet based. Therefore:

(a)U-space information is exchanged in a machine-readable format to support the necessary exchange of data among the U-space actors concerned; and

(b)operations in the U-space airspace require the UAS operator to establish a connection to a USSP.

USSP–UAS OPERATOR INTERFACES The USSP may have various means to develop and provide UAS interfaces, such as interfaces relying on mobile, web or PC applications, and/or application programming interfaces (API). The solution retained is expected to ensure that the performance requirements are met, and the availability of the services is ensured.

CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE IMMEDIATE AWARENESS Safety-critical information, which may require the UAS operators’ immediate awareness, may concern the following:

(a)degradation of services;

(b)changes in the configuration of the U-space airspace (e.g. dynamic airspace restriction or reconfiguration);

(c)changes in the flight authorisation;

(d)new emergency in the proximity of the UAS flight;

(e)non-conformance, when relevant for the U-space airspace;

(f)incoming manned traffic which may eventually result in a conflict with the UAS flight trajectory;

(g)infringement of the UAS flight authorisation;

(h)detection of rogue traffic in the proximity or within the volume where the UAS flight is performed.

ALERTING MEANS Safety relies on the timely reaction of UAS operators to situational changes that may dynamically occur in the U-space airspace throughout the UAS flight. Inappropriate UAS operator reaction due to a lack of sufficient awareness may ultimately compromise safety. Moreover, UAS operations require UAS operators to additionally manage operational information than just strict UAS flight data. In some conditions, especially where high workload is involved, UAS operators may have limited capability to focus their attention on monitoring U-space services in order to detect new relevant information. Regardless of being served by the USSP through a separate user interface/application or through direct application programming interface (API), UAS operators need to be clearly alerted to new, safety-critical information during all phases of flight (flight preparation, preflight, in flight and postflight). To effectively attract the attention of UAS operators, the USSP may either implement or provide the supporting means of various techniques such as:

(a)visual annunciations (e.g. flashing red),

(b)aural annunciations (e.g. sounds or voice),

(c)telephony voice messages,

(d)telephony text messages, coupled with haptic sense. To maximise the effectiveness of the attention-getter, it is recommended that the USSP rely on more than one means for raising awareness on safety-critical information that requires immediate attention. The implementation of the necessary alerting means should ensure the use of appropriate designs that effectively raise the attention of UAS operators while preventing undue nuisance and distraction that could impair the safe conduct of UAS operations.

DEGRADATION OF USSP SERVICES It is recommended as best practice that the USSP disseminate the information on the degradation of its services within 30 seconds.

UAS OPERATIONAL RECORDS It is recommended as best practice that USSPs provide UAS operators with a method to access a copy of their data related to the U-space services required by a Member State (e.g. history of the flight authorisations as well as non-normal conditions). Any requested piece or set of data should be electronically exported and provided to the UAS operators in a machine-readable format.

ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN USSPs AND ATSPs For U-space airspace established in controlled airspace, the USSP should establish a written agreement with the relevant ATSP covering the coordination of activities, as well as the exchange of relevant operational data and information. The coordination activities between the USSP and the ATSP should cover:

(a)the emergency management plan as per Article 15(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664, including contingency and emergency conditions involving manned and unmanned aircraft;

(b)the exchange of relevant operational data and information, if not provided through the CIS, as per point ATS.OR.127 of Regulation (EU) 2017/373 amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/665;

(c)the dynamic airspace reconfiguration procedure, laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2021/664, and in accordance with point ATS.TR.237 of Regulation (EU) 2017/373 amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/665, in identifying the means to:

(1)receive the dynamic airspace reconfiguration requests from the ATC unit;

(2)notify in a timely manner the ATC unit about the presence of UAS special operations within the designated U-space airspace as per AMC2 to point ATS.TR.237(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/373 amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/665;

(3)notify the ATC unit once the airspace reconfiguration has been implemented, as per the conditions addressed in the AMC and GM to Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2021/664;

(4)alert the ATC unit in case of unavailability of the link with the USSP;

(5)alert the ATC unit in case a relevant non-conformance is identified in the U-space airspace, when the conformance monitoring service is required, and as per Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664.

ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN USSPs AND ATSPs Although the exchange of data and information between USSPs and ATSPs is routed via the CIS in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2021/664, the coordination of activities (such as emergency procedures) will require the direct interaction and coordination between USSPs and ATSPs. Therefore, the following arrangement topics are not suitable to be delegated to a single CIS provider (when one is designated):

(a)normal, contingency and emergency procedures concerning UAS operations;

(b)nominal, non-normal and emergency procedures concerning manned aircraft operations performed in the U-space airspace;

(c)procedures concerning system or service shortages and degraded level of quality of a service;

(d)procedures, roles and responsibilities for both parties, as required by Article 15(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664. It is recommended that USSPs use GM1 to Article 5(6) of this Regulation to formalise the arrangement with the relevant ATSP.

ARRANGEMENT AMONG USSPs For the purpose of ensuring technical interoperability, all USSPs with an interest in the same U-space airspace should adhere to the same arrangement. The arrangement should ensure the compatibility of a USSP system joining the U-space airspace to allow USSPs to add the start/cease of the provision of services in the agreement or remove the start/cease of the provision of services from it.

MONITORING OF THE AVAILABILITY OF CIS AND ATSPs The USSP should monitor the availability of, and quality of the exchange with, the provider of common information, or the single CIS provider (if designated), and ATSPs.

PRESERVATION OF DATA INTEGRITY AND QUALITY USSPs should ensure for the data they are required to collect and distribute that:

(a)they do not alter the information, and preserve the integrity of the information received;

(b)they take appropriate measures to maintain the completeness, accuracy, resolution, traceability, timeliness, and logical consistency of the data.

REPORTING OF DATA QUALITY ISSUES USSPs should inform the providers of common information, the single CIS provider (if designated) and other USSPs that operate in the same U-space airspace as soon as practically possible of any detected availability or quality issues with the data received.

EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AMONG USSPs A USSP should exchange and consolidate the following information with other USSPs that share the same U-space airspace:

(a)UAS remote identification, through the network information service, to support the continuous consolidation of traffic information.

(b)The status of the UAS flight authorisations to ensure the continuous synchronisation of the authorisations within the U-space airspace and adequate deconfliction.

(c)Traffic information, including e-conspicuous manned aircraft, as per point SERA.6005(c) of Regulation (EU) No 923/2012, when duly agreed among the USSPs.

(d)Non-conformance alerts trigged by their UAS operators.

(e)Notification of the degradation of their services.

(f)Contingencies and emergencies of their UAS operators.

(g)Other information as required by the Member State and/or as agreed among the USSPs, which may be necessary to ensure interoperability in the U-space airspace.

EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AMONG USSPs — INTERFACES

(a)The exchange of information described in point (c) among the USSPs should conform to the requirements of Annex A to EUROCONTROL ‘Specification for SWIM Technical Infrastructure (TI) Yellow Profile’, edition 1.1, published on 5 July 2020.

(b)USSPs should document the services that facilitate the exchange of information referred to in Article 3(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664, as well as the related services regarding the safe provision of services, and should adhere to EUROCONTROL ‘Specification for SWIM Service Description (SD)’, edition 2.0, published on 15 March 2022.

(c)The documentation of services defined in point (b) should be made available to the public (e.g. service descriptions, interfaces).

(d)Compliance with points (a) and (b) should be directly measured against the requirements listed in the respective documents.

ARRANGEMENT AMONG USSPs AND THE MASTER AGREEMENT USSPs may use a common contract (the master agreement) that defines the technical indicators associated with the provision of services, acceptable and unacceptable service levels, parameters for data-sharing among USSPs, as well as dispute resolution procedures and actions to be taken in specific circumstances.

MONITORING OF THE AVAILABILITY OF CIS AND ATSPs The frequency at which CIS providers and ATSPs are monitored is commensurate with the level of risk the lack of information may induce. Indeed, while the unavailability of communication with the ATSP may represent a short-term threat to safety, the lack of availability of the UAS operator’s registration databases would only represent an issue in case of unresponsiveness to a query.

EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION ON E-CONSPICUOUS MANNED TRAFFIC The receipt of information on e-conspicuous manned traffic, as per point SERA.6005(c) of Regulation (EU) No 923/2012, may rely on ground infrastructure (e.g. antennas) in the U-space airspace privately deployed by the USSPs. In order not to create an unfavourable situation and unfair treatment among the USSPs, the exchange of information on e-conspicuous manned traffic is subject to a specific agreement made among the USSPs.

EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION — INFORMATION MODEL

(a)U-space services may be provided concurrently by multiple USSPs in the same airspace. This requires the exchange of information and coordination among those USSPs, as well as between USSPs and other entities (such as UAS operators, ATSPs and CIS providers). Such exchange of information is expected to be based on open protocols and formats, using public, IP-based networks as transport layers.

(b)The exchange of information (and its models) should be described in a technology-agnostic way (e.g. in the Unified Modelling Language (UML)). The aim is to document the key aspects of a dedicated information exchange service at conceptual level.

(1)Operational and business context of the service:

(i)service requirements (e.g. information exchange, constraints, validation rules);

(ii)stakeholders that provide/use the service;

(iii)operational activities supported by the service (e.g. flight planning, flight execution, etc.);

(iv)relation of the service to other services.

(2)Service description:

(i)interfaces (e.g. based on request/response or publish/subscribe);

(ii)interface operations (methods to interact with the service, e.g. request a flight authorisation);

(iii)payload definition;

(iv)features (e.g. a flight authorisation object);

(v)properties/attributes (e.g. the identifier within a flight authorisation object);

(vi)data types (e.g. defining the identifier within a flight authorisation record as a list of characters and numbers);

(vii)associations (e.g. the relation of a flight authorisation to a registered UAS);

(viii)dynamic behaviour (and life cycle) description.

(3)Service performance level and validation aspects.

(c)The information exchange services described in point (b) may be realised in different technical implementation levels enabling an architectural approach based on one concept, allowing for multiple potential solutions.

(d)Consequently, different types of data frames might be in use to carry payload. A standard data encoding may be used to provide the service (JSON or ASTERIX on the example of traffic information).

(e)The data encoding should be mapped to the definition of the service payload. Furthermore, the service that provided the information on this data encoding should be mapped in relevant technical details as well, e.g. in the service interfaces and operations. EUROCAE ED-269, which establishes a conceptual definition and its implementation in a standard data encoding, may be used as an example.

(f)Provision of safe services

(1)In addition to the operational information exchanged among the respective USSPs, further information on the respective service’s performance (e.g. degradation of services) may be collected and made available to ensure the provision of safe services. Sufficient monitoring may support technical operations to be performed under controlled conditions. This includes ensuring compliance with the related data quality, latency and data protection requirements set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2021/664.

(2)The provision and exchange of any safety-relevant information should follow processes that are comparable to established standards (e.g. ISO 9001 series). Additional information that originates from these processes should be exchanged as well. This includes but is not limited to:

(i)service availability (planned or unplanned downtime, points of contact for technical and operational matters, etc.);

(ii)service limitations (degraded operations, regional constraints, known issues);

(iii)service integrity (security/safety incidents).

(3)Both operational and service performance information should be protected; technical and operational measures should be taken by the USSPs to ensure the necessary information protection.

(g)Protocol Any information exchange should be based on a common open communication protocol, such as the transmission control protocol (TCP). As a minimum, the requirements documented in the SWIM Technical Infrastructure (TI) Yellow Profile, edition 1.1, published on 5 July 2020, should be met.

(h)Extension of information exchange services

(1)Information exchange services may be extended by the entities described in point (a).

(2)The extension of information exchange services, by changing their description (as described in point (b)(2)), should not jeopardise their semantic interoperability and standardisation across the Member States.

(3)The extension of the payload definition can be usually managed by:

(i)adding additional properties/attributes to the features;

(i)adding new features.

(4)The extension points for additional properties/attributes could be already foreseen in the payload definition, such as free text or a custom enumeration.

(5)If custom features are added by an extension, the association between the default and the additional features should always be managed in the additional feature.

(6)The description of the extended service should introduce optional elements (interfaces, operations, features, attributes/properties, data types, etc.) only. For instance, if additional information regarding communication infrastructure is provided by an extended flight authorisation service, a new feature called ‘communication infrastructure service availability’ might be introduced. This new feature might be associated with a flight authorisation feature. The association should be designed without changing the flight authorisation feature, to allow the processing of flight authorisations by services that have no knowledge of the ‘communication infrastructure service availability’.

(7)The approach to the service description is laid down in the SWIM Service Description and the EUROCONTROL Specification for SWIM — Information Definition.

(i)Protection of information The necessary protection level will vary depending on the type of the information exchanged. As a minimum, the requirements documented in the SWIM Technical Infrastructure (TI) Yellow Profile, edition 1.1, published on 5 July 2020, should be met. Additional protection should be put in place where applicable, especially when considering the relevant data privacy regulations (e.g. GDPR).

CONFIGURATION OF THE PROVISION OF SERVICES After receiving their certificate, USSPs are entitled to deliver their services in any U-space airspace. Nevertheless, the result of the U-space airspace risk assessment, and the related performance requirements, operational constraints and digital interfaces may vary between U-space airspace volumes. Therefore, prior to start providing services, the USSP should liaise with the local competent authority to ensure that the provision of services satisfy the performance requirements and constraints established for the U-space airspace where the operations are intended to be conducted. When the USSP services are inadequate to fulfil the local conditions to an extent which may not ensure the safe provision of services, the USSP should undertake the extension of its certificate to demonstrate its capability to satisfy the complementary U-space airspace requirements and constraints.

SUPPORTING OPERATIONAL RECORDS As soon as the operations start and until they are ceased, the USSPs should support the safety of the operations and the competent authority in charge of the U-space airspace, in recording and making available operational data and events that may be encountered. The type of this data and its retention should be agreed with the competent authority, but should be compatible with the dynamic reassessment of the definition of the U-space airspace.

U-SPACE AIRSPACE — ONBOARDING PROCESS Before reporting the start of operations to the competent authority, and in order to provide services in newly designated U-space airspace, USSPs may have to:

(a)coordinate with the competent authority in charge of the U-space airspace where the operations are intended to be conducted;

(b)coordinate and conclude agreements with the CIS providers (or, when designated, the single CIS provider) in that U-space airspace on data sharing;

(c)coordinate and conclude agreements with other USSPs in that U-space airspace on data sharing;

(d)coordinate and conclude agreements with ATSPs in that U-space airspace;

(e)configure and/or adjust the provision of services:

(1)to adhere to the common protocol that supports the exchange of information (e.g. among USSPs) in the U-space airspace;

(2)to satisfy the performance requirements and constraints of the U-space airspace.

CONFIGURATION OF THE PROVISION OF SERVICES The main items that may vary between U-space airspace volumes are:

(a)the required set of U-space services, which could encompass the provisions of Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664;

(b)the U-space services’ performance requirements and constraints, as per Article 3(4) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664;

(c)the common protocol(s) that support the exchange of information with the CIS provider and among the USSPs as per Articles 5(4)(a) and 7(5)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664 and its Annex II.

REPORT TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY — TEMPLATE FORM USSPs may consider using the template form below for the purpose of reporting to the competent authority the start and ceasing of the operations. Letter to the competent authority U-space service provider report to the competent authority in accordance with Article 7(6) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664

SUPPORTING OPERATIONAL RECORDS The operational records are meant to provide data to support the implementation of Article 18(h) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664, and the dynamic reassessment of the definition of the U-space airspace as defined in the AMC and GM to Articles 3(1) and 18(f) of Regulation (EU) 2021/664. The operational data and events that may be of interest to a competent authority are the following:

(a)dynamic airspace reconfiguration or restrictions;

(b)failure to implement dynamic airspace restriction or reconfiguration;

(c)volume of (e-conspicuous) manned aircraft crossing the U-space airspace;

(d)air proximity situation among UAS, and between UAS and manned aircraft;

(e)emergency declared by UAS operators;

(f)deviation (non-conformance) with the flight authorisation;

(g)over-conformance, when the deviation threshold may be too wide and airspace capacity wasted;

(h)detection of rogue UAS, or UAS used for malicious or unlawful purposes. The information may be provided in terms of:

(i)volume/number of occurrences; and

(j)date, time, and location expressed in WGS 84 coordinate. It is recommended that the USSP keep the records for a period of 5 years.