NPCC Challenged on Police Drone ‘State-Plane’ Standing, BVLOS Trials, and ‘Simply Tradition’ Coverage – sUAS Information

Pricey NPCC UAS Lead,

Following latest reporting of a police-operated UAS incident (severe damage to a baby) and separate references to DFR/BVLOS trials inside TDAs, I might be pleased about responses to the next factors within the public curiosity. Please reply for NPCC coverage and, the place attainable, present force-level information or references to present steering.

A. Security governance, State-aircraft standing, and “simply tradition”

1. Framework: Underneath your State-aircraft preparations, what documented Security Administration System (SMS) and incidence reporting requirements apply to police UAS operations nationwide? Please share the present NPCC UAS security governance coverage (or verify doc titles and areas if public).
2. Equivalence: How do you guarantee equal security outcomes to the civil regime (had operations fallen underneath UK-retained Reg. 2019/947/CAP 722)?
3. Simply tradition: What formal just-culture coverage protects candid security reporting whereas making certain accountability? How is that this applied and audited throughout forces?

B. Incidence reporting & accident investigation

4. Necessary notifications: For public-injury occasions, which physique is notified (AAIB or different competent State-aircraft investigation authority)? What’s the set off threshold and timescale?
5. Statistics: Within the final 36 months, what number of UAS occurrences involving damage or vital property harm have been recorded by police forces? Please present counts by severity, drive, and whether or not a public report/studying bulletin was issued.
6. Studying dissemination: What’s the course of and cadence for publishing anonymised security classes to the broader UAS neighborhood?

C. The Isle of Sheppey incident (2 August 2025)

7. Notifications & preservation: Was the incident notified to the competent accident investigation physique? Have been uncooked flight logs, controller logs, and video preserved utilizing a tamper-evident course of?
8. Causation elements: Did your inner evaluation determine technical elements (e.g., geofencing, return-to-home logic, impediment sensing), human elements (workload, visibility, coaching), or procedural gaps (web site survey, overhead line identification) as causal or contributory?
9. Public replace: When will you publish a redacted lessons-learned abstract protecting danger mitigations applied post-incident?

D. Knowledge integrity, proof, and misconduct prevention

10. Deletion controls: What technical controls forestall operational personnel from deleting or altering mission footage/telemetry (e.g., write-once storage, computerized cloud offload, audit logs)?
11. Audit & sanctions: How are audit trails reviewed, and what are the sanction pathways the place proof tampering is suspected?

E. Coaching, competence, and foreign money

12. Requirements: What are the minimal coaching/competency requirements for police UAS pilots/observers, together with BVLOS/DFR roles? Please present the syllabus define (air legislation, airspace, HF, emergency procedures, impediment/power-line hazards).
13. Foreign money checks: What recency and proficiency checks apply (e.g., periodic examine rides, scenario-based coaching, simulator time)?
14. Human elements: How is HF/CRM embedded and assessed consistent with greatest follow from NPAS or civil aviation?

F. BVLOS/DFR trials and Non permanent Hazard Areas (TDAs)

15. Authorized foundation & proportionality: What’s the authorized foundation for the BVLOS/DFR surveillance idea over built-up areas, and the way is necessity and proportionality assessed (incl. DPIA and retention durations for collected imagery)?
16. Airspace impression: Previous to establishing TDAs (e.g., London, Coventry), what stakeholder consultations have been undertaken with different UAS operators and the way was financial impression (misplaced industrial operations) thought of and mitigated?
17. Deconfliction: What strategic and tactical deconfliction measures (procedural and technical) are used with different airspace customers (manned and unmanned) inside/close to TDAs?
18. Public transparency: Will NPCC publish a public abstract of every TDA trial’s security case, mitigations, efficiency outcomes, and classes discovered?

G. Gear, technical mitigations, and insurance coverage

19. Technical mitigations: What minimal gear/automation requirements apply (impediment sensing, power-line consciousness instruments, geofencing parameters, lost-link logic, conspicuity, distant ID the place relevant)?
20. Insurance coverage & redress: What public-liability preparations cowl accidents/damages arising from police UAS operations, and the way is redress communicated to affected members of the general public?

I might welcome a written response inside 30 days. If any solutions activate paperwork not publicly obtainable, please point out whether or not they are often shared in redacted type or summarised.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Ryan

Barrister, Mediator & Worldwide Arbitrator

+447867807008

[email protected]

Associated