AMC3 UAS.SPEC.030(3)(e) Application for an operational authorisation

• ED Decision 2022/002/R found in: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (No 2019/947 and 2019/945) Part-UAS (Jul 2024)

AMC3 UAS.SPEC.030(3)(e) Application for an operational authorisation ED Decision 2022/002/R EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN (ERP) WITH ‘MEDIUM’ AND ‘HIGH’ LEVEL OF ROBUSTNESS 1. Scope of this AMC 1.1 This AMC defines the content of an ERP as well as the methodology for its validation. It may be used to meet Criterion #1 (Procedures) of Mitigation M3 — An ERP is in place, UAS operator validated and effective of [Annex B](#_DxCrossRefBm1106656746) to AMC1 Article 11 for medium and high level of robustness. 1.2 The risk assessment, as required by [Article 11](#_DxCrossRefBm1106656763) of the UAS Regulation, should address the safety risks that are associated with the loss of control of a UAS operation, which may result in: (a) fatal injuries to third parties on the ground; (b) injuries to third parties in the air; or (c) damage to critical infrastructure. Note: As per point B.4 of [Annex B](#_DxCrossRefBm1106656746) to AMC1 Article 11, the loss of control of a UAS operation corresponds to situations where the emergency procedures would not have provided the desired effect, the UAS operation is in an unrecoverable state, and: — the outcome of the situation relies highly on providence; or — the situation could not be handled via a contingency procedure; or — there is a grave and imminent danger of fatalities. 1.3. Therefore, in line with the risk assessment, the scope of this AMC is limited to addressing the response to emergency situations that are caused by the UAS operation, as well as the potential consequences that are indicated in point 1.2. However, the response to such emergency situations should not be limited to the potential risk/harm only to third parties but also to the UAS operator’s personnel. 1.4. This AMC does not address emergency situations other than those referred to in point 1.3. However, the UAS operator may be required to address such situations as part of the operational authorisation[[97]](#_ftn98). **2. Purpose of the ERP** 2.1. The UAS operator should, in cooperation with other stakeholders, if applicable, develop, coordinate, and maintain an ERP that ensures orderly and safe transition from normal operation to emergency and return to normal operation. The ERP should include the actions to be taken by the UAS operator or specified individuals in an emergency, and indicate the size, nature, and complexity of the activities to be performed by the UAS operator or the specified individuals. 2.2. As for emergency procedures, an ERP is implemented by the UAS operator to address emergency situations. However, an ERP is specifically developed to: (a) limit any escalating effect of the emergency situation; (b) meet the conditions to alert the relevant authorities and entities. 2.3. The ERP should contain all the necessary information about the role of the relevant personnel in an emergency and about their response to it. **3. Effectiveness of the ERP** 3.1. For the ERP to be effective, it should: (a) be appropriate to the size, nature, and complexity of the UAS operation; (b) be readily accessible by all relevant personnel and by other entities, where applicable; (c) include procedures and checklists relevant to different or specific emergency situations; (d) clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the relevant personnel; (e) have quick-reference contact details of the relevant personnel; (f) be regularly tested through practical exercises involving the relevant personnel; and (g) be periodically reviewed and updated, when necessary, to maintain its effectiveness. **4. Emergency situations, response activation, procedures, and checklists** 4.1. The ERP should define the criteria for identifying emergency situations, and for identifying the main emergency situations that are likely to increase the level of harm (escalating effect) if no action is taken. 4.2. The identified emergency situations should at least include those where one or more UA are operated by the UAS operator and have the potential to: (a) harm one or more persons; (b) hit a ground vehicle, building, or facility where there are one or more persons who might be injured as a consequence of the UA impact; (c) harm critical infrastructure; (d) start a fire that might propagate; (e) release dangerous substances; (f) hit an aircraft that carries people and/or whose crash might lead to one or more of the situations listed in (a) to (e); and (g) cause the UA to leave the operational volume and fly beyond the limits of: (1) the ground risk buffer; and/or (2) the air risk buffer (if existing), or enter adjacent airspace where there is a risk of collision with manned aircraft. 4.3. The ERP should establish the criteria for the activation of the respective emergency response procedures to address the identified emergency situations. 4.4. The ERP should consider the following principles for prioritising the actions to respond to an emergency situation: (a) alert the relevant personnel and entities; (b) protect the life of those affected or in danger; (c) give first aid while awaiting the arrival of the emergency services, provided the personnel employed by the UAS operator is qualified for that purpose; (d) ensure the safety of the emergency responders; (e) address secondary effects and put in place actions to reduce them (e.g. if the UA crashes on a road, warn the other drivers in the traffic or redirect them accordingly in order to avoid having cars colliding with the crashed UAS); (f) keep the emergency situation under control or contained; (g) protect property; (h) restore the normal situation as soon as practicable; (i) record the emergency situation and the response to it, and preserve evidence for further investigation; (j) remove damaged items, unless needed untouched for investigation purposes, and restore the location of the emergency; (k) debrief the relevant personnel; (l) prepare any required post-emergency report or notification; and (m) evaluate the effectiveness of the ERP and update it, if required. 4.5. As a minimum, the ERP should include procedures for: (a) an orderly transition from the normal phase to the emergency response phase; (b) the assignment of emergency responsibilities and roles (see point 5); (c) coordinated action and interaction with other entities to respond to the emergency situation; and (d) return to normal operation as soon as practicable. 4.6. The ERP should include a procedure for recording the information on the emergency situation and on the subsequent response. That procedure should also cover how to gather information from a third party that reports an emergency situation caused by a UA of the UAS operator. 4.7. The ERP should include procedures for handling hazardous materials in an emergency situation, if applicable. 4.8. The ERP should include checklists that: (a) are suitable for the identified emergency situations, as per point 4.1; (b) clearly indicate the sequence of actions and the personnel responsible to carry out those actions; and (c) provide the contact details of key stakeholders, as per point 5.4. 4.9. The content of the ERP should be kept up to date and reflect all organisational or operational changes that may affect it. **5. Roles, responsibilities, and key points of contact** 5.1. The UAS operator should nominate an emergency response manager (ERM) who has the overall responsibility for the emergency response. 5.2. If the UAS operator is not a one-person entity and/or manages external personnel in an emergency response, the UAS operator should establish an emergency response team (ERT) that: (a) is led by the ERM; (b) includes a core ERT that comprises persons with a role that implies being directly involved in responding to an emergency situation; and (c) includes, if applicable, a support ERT that comprises ERT members who support the core ERT in responding to the emergency situation. 5.3. The ERP should provide a clear delineation of the responsibilities in an emergency response, including the duties of the remote pilot(s) and of any other personnel in charge of duties essential to the UAS operation. 5.4. The ERP should establish a contact list(s) of key staff, relevant authorities, and entities involved in an emergency response, including: (a) the full names, roles, responsibilities, and contact details of the ERM and, if applicable, of the ERT members, including their replacement if the nominated persons are unavailable; and (b) the full names, roles, responsibilities, and contact details of the relevant authorities and entities outside the UAS operator to be contacted in case of emergency; in addition, the single European emergency call number ‘112’ should be indicated as an emergency contact number for UAS operations that are conducted in any of the EASA Member States and in any other State where that number is used[[98]](#_ftn99). 5.5. The ERP should indicate the person(s) responsible for the emergency response means (refer to point 6.2) and their contact details. The responsible person(s) should ensure that those means are available and usable when needed. 5.6. To ensure a prompt response, the ERM and other ERT members, if applicable, should have direct access to: (a) the emergency response checklists that are indicated in point 4.8; and (b) if not included in the checklists referred to in (a), the contact list(s) indicated in point 5.4. **6. Emergency response means** 6.1. The ERP should indicate the means to be used by the UAS operator to respond to an emergency, which may include one or more of the following: (a) facilities, infrastructure, and equipment; (b) extinguishing means, e.g. fire extinguishers, fireproof portable electronic device (PED) bags; (c) personal protective equipment, e.g. protective clothing, high-visibility clothing, helmets, goggles, gloves; (d) medical means, including first-aid kits; (e) communication means, e.g. phones (landline and mobile), walkie-talkies, aviation radios, internet; and (f) others. 6.2. The person(s) in charge of the emergency response means should have an updated record of the available means that are indicated in point 6.1, including their number and status (e.g. expiry date of perishable means). **7. ERP validation** 7.1. If the UAS operator is a one-person entity and does not manage external personnel in an emergency response, the UAS operator should at least ensure that: (a) the procedures that are indicated in point 4 cover all the identified emergency situations and that the necessary actions are reflected in the corresponding checklist(s); (b) the contact details in the list(s) indicated in point 5.4 are up to date; and (c) the availability of the emergency response means that are indicated in point 6 is checked before conducting any UAS operation, in particular that the communication means to alert the relevant contacts (see point (b)) are operational. 7.2. If the UAS operator is not a one-person entity and/or manages external personnel in an emergency response, in addition to complying with point 7.1, the UAS operator should conduct a tabletop exercise[[99]](#_ftn100) that: (a) is established in accordance with the criteria that are indicated in the ERP to be considered representative; (b) is consistent with the ERP training syllabus; (c) includes sessions where one or more scenarios of the identified emergency situations are discussed by the exercise participants, which should include the relevant ERT members for each of the sessions; all aspects of the ERP should be covered once all sessions of the tabletop exercise have been completed; (d) is guided by the ERM or any other person designated by the UAS operator to act as a facilitator; (e) may include the participation of third parties that are identified in the ERP; the participation conditions for those third parties should be indicated in the ERP; and (f) is performed with the periodicity that is indicated in the ERP. However, if the UAS operator is a one-person entity and does not manage external personnel in an emergency response, a tabletop exercise may not be appropriate as the participation of third parties is not required. In such case, the conditions of point 7.1 are deemed sufficient and proportionate to the level of simplicity of the operator and, in principle, of the UAS operations. For UAS operators with a more complex structure as well as for complex UAS operations, the tabletop exercises may need to be complemented with partial emergency exercises and/or full-scale exercises, including the corresponding drills. If the level of robustness that is required or claimed for the ERP is high, such exercises and drills are needed. 7.3. If the level of robustness of the ERP is high: (a) the ERP and its effectiveness with respect to limiting the number of people at risk should be validated by the competent authority itself or by an entity designated by the competent authority; (b) the UAS operator should coordinate and agree on the ERP with all third parties that are identified in the plan; and (c) the representativeness of the tabletop exercise is validated by the competent authority that issues the authorisation or by an entity that is designated by that competent authority. 7.4. After following the procedures that are described in the ERP in a real emergency situation, the UAS operator should conduct an analysis of the way the emergency was managed and verify the effectiveness of the ERP. **8. ERP training** 8.1. The UAS operator should provide relevant personnel, and in particular ERT members, with ERP training. 8.2. The UAS operator should develop a training syllabus that covers all the elements of the ERP. 8.3. The UAS operator should compile and keep up to date a record of the ERP training that is completed by the relevant personnel. 8.4. The competent authority that issues the authorisation or an entity that is designated by that competent authority should verify the competencies of the relevant personnel if the level of assurance that is required or claimed for the ERP is high. --- [[97]](#_ftnref98) Chapter 2 *Events which may activate the Emergency Response Plan* of the European Helicopter Safety Team (EHEST) *Safety Management Toolkit for Non-Complex Operators — Emergency Response Plan — A Template for Industry* (2nd edition, October 2014) provides examples of emergency situations that are outside the scope of this AMC but may be required to be addressed by the UAS operator as part of the operational authorisation (<https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/general-publications/ehest-safety-management-toolkit-non-complexoperators-2nd>). [[98]](#_ftnref99) Chapter 5 *Reaction to an emergency call* of the European Helicopter Safety Team (EHEST) *Safety Management Toolkit for Non-Complex Operators — Emergency Response Plan — A Template for Industry* (2nd edition, October 2014) (<https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/general-publications/ehest-safety-management-toolkit-non-complexoperators-2nd>), and the ‘primary accident information sheet’ in its Section 5.1 may be a suitable reference for developing a procedure to indicate how to gather information from a third party on an emergency involving a UA of the UAS operator. Section 6.5 *Crisis Log* provides an example of a ‘crisis log’ that might be useful for developing a template to record the emergency situation and the response to it. [[99]](#_ftnref100) Please refer to GM2 ADR.OPS.B.005(c) *Aerodrome emergency planning* (see AMC and GM to Authority, Organisation and Operations Requirements for Aerodromes), which defines the following three categories of exercises for emergency planning: (a) full-scale exercises; (b) partial emergency exercises; and (c) tabletop exercises.