Safety Risk Assurance Table

Claim

Risk number 1A/D in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

IMSAFE is utilised for all Drone Ag Limited UAS operations. This ensures that the RP self-assesses their suitability to fly, which will reduce the risk of an RP incapacitation event. In the unlikely event of the RP being incapacitated, all UAs are fitted with RTH capabilities which will ensure that the UA returns to the home point. This is either through automatic activation, such as with a low battery event, or by the RP activating the capability before becoming incapacitated. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.4 – Flight Safety Programme

Volume 1 – Section 3.7 – Crew Health

Volume 1 – Section 4.12.2 – On-Site Procedures

Volume 1 – Section 4.16.3 – Crew Briefing

Volume 1 – Section 4.20.1 – Emergency Procedures

Volume 1 – Section 2.2– Emergency Recovery and Safety Systems

Claim

Risk number 1B/C in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

IMSAFE is utilised for all Drone Ag Limited UAS operations. This ensures that the RP self-assesses their suitability to fly, which will reduce the risk of an RP incapacitation event. In the unlikely event of the RP being incapacitated, all UAs are fitted with RTH capabilities which will ensure that the UA returns to the home point. This is either through automatic activation, such as with a low battery event, or by the RP activating the capability before becoming incapacitated. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.4 – Flight Safety Programme

Volume 1 – Section 3.7 – Crew Health

Volume 1 – Section 4.12.2 – On-Site Procedures

Volume 1 – Section 4.16.3 – Crew Briefing

Volume 1 – Section 4.20.1 – Emergency Procedures

Volume 1 – Section 2.2– Emergency Recovery and Safety Systems

Claim

Risk number 2A/D in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

Drone Ag Limited has implemented a maintenance process mitigating against the identified SPOF and known failure modes of all aircraft subject to the safety case. The aircraft will not overfly uninvolved persons, this provides a barrier to preventing the UA from colliding with uninvolved persons because of falling to the ground. The pilots will utilise checklists to ensure the correct checks are completed on the aircraft before any flight is conducted. The training regime implemented ensures that this is completed consistently. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 1 – Appendix E – Flight Reference Cards

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.15A – Whole system single points of failure

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.16.A – Known Failure modes.

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.17A – Life Cycles, Maintenance Schedules, Inspections and Repair of UAS

Claim

Risk number 2B/C in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

Drone Ag Limited has implemented a maintenance process, aimed at mitigating the identified SPOF and known failure modes of all aircraft subject to the safety case. The aircraft will not overfly uninvolved persons, this provides a barrier to preventing the UA from colliding with uninvolved persons because of the aircraft falling to the ground. The pilots will utilise checklists to ensure the correct checks are completed on the aircraft before any flight is conducted. The training regime implemented ensures that this is completed consistently. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 1 – Appendix E – Flight Reference Cards

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.15A – Whole system single points of failure

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.16.A – Known Failure modes.

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.17A – Life Cycles, Maintenance Schedules, Inspections and Repair of UAS

Claim

Risk number 3A/D in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

All aircraft are subject to regular maintenance, during which the condition of the payloads is checked. This will include an examination of the payload attachment mechanism (E.G gimbals). Maintenance is auditable and recorded on the corresponding maintenance log. The RPs are all trained in checklist utilisation, which is used whilst on-site to ensure that the payload security is checked. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 1 – Appendix E – Flight Reference Cards

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.17A – Life Cycles, Maintenance Schedules, Inspections and Repair of UAS

Claim

Risk number 3B/C in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

All aircraft are subject to regular maintenance, during which the condition of the payloads is checked. This will include an examination of the payload attachment mechanism (E.G gimbals). Maintenance is auditable and recorded on the corresponding maintenance log. The RPs are all trained in checklist utilisation, which is used whilst on-site to ensure that the payload security is checked. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 1 – Appendix E – Flight Reference Cards

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.17A – Life Cycles, Maintenance Schedules, Inspections and Repair of UAS

Claim

Risk number 4A/D in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

Operations are conducted within VLOS limits, which allows the RP to sufficiently monitor the path of the UA. All RPs are competent to complete flights whilst maintaining VLOS as they have been awarded a relevant qualification from a CAA-approved RAE / NQE. Collision avoidance in the form of either vision position sensors or radar is utilised on the aircraft subject to the OSC, to provide additional mitigation. Overflight of uninvolved persons is not conducted to provide additional mitigation and prevent a collision with an uninvolved person in the event of a collision occurring with a structure. Operations are performed away from uninvolved persons due to the nature of Drone Ag Limited operations, meaning that any loss of control of the UA is unlikely to result in a collision with an uninvolved person. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 4.2 – Area of Operations

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.6C – Positioning, Navigation and Guidance

Claim

Risk number 4B/C in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

Operations are conducted within VLOS limits, which allows the RP to sufficiently monitor the path of the UA. All RPs are competent to complete flights whilst maintaining VLOS as they have been awarded a relevant qualification from a CAA-approved RAE / NQE. Collision avoidance in the form of either vision position sensors or radar is utilised on the aircraft subject to the OSC, to provide some additional mitigation. Overflight of uninvolved persons is not conducted to provide additional mitigation and prevent a collision with an uninvolved person in the event of a collision occurring with a structure. Operations are performed away from uninvolved persons due to the nature of Drone Ag Limited operations, meaning that any loss of control of the UA is unlikely to result in a collision with an uninvolved person. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 4.2 – Area of Operations

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.6C – Positioning, Navigation and Guidance

Claim

Risk number 5A/D in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

Loss of C2 link is unlikely as the UA is always operated within VLOS of the RP, but also within the stated C2 range limitations of the aircraft which are provided by the manufacturer. All UA do however have failsafe RTH capabilities that ensure the control of the UA is not permanently lost, resulting in a flyaway occurring. All pilots have training which ensures they comply with the operation limitations and conditions. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 2 – Section 1.2A – The design flight envelope

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.10A – Emergency Recovery and safety systems

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.13A – C2 Link

Claim

Risk number 5B/C in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

Loss of C2 link is unlikely as the UA is always operated within VLOS of the RP, but also within the stated C2 range limitations of the aircraft which are provided by the manufacturer. All UA do however have failsafe RTH capabilities that ensure the control of the UA is not permanently lost, resulting in a flyaway occurring. All pilots have training which ensures they comply with the operation limitations and conditions. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 2 – Section 1.2B – The design flight envelope

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.10B – Emergency Recovery and Safety Systems

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.13B – C2 Link

Claim

Risk number 6A/D in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

Operational planning ensures that the UA is operated in environments where it is permitted to, specifically, that the airspace is safe and not subject to any type of restriction. Checks will further be conducted to identify any abnormal aviation activity that is taking place, such as low-level helicopter inspections, through the RP checking NOTAMS. RP’s will conduct notifications to aviation risk sources, such as when operating in an FRZ, and record nearby aviation source contact details to notify them in the event of a relevant emergency procedure. VLOS is maintained with the aircraft, sufficient for the airspace surrounding the UA to be safely monitored, ensuring that any airspace incursion is correctly monitored and avoiding action taken. Emergency procedures are implemented, and the RP’s will remain current through annual testing. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.4.3 – Emergency Drills and Training

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 1 – Section 4.12 - Methods to determine the intended task feasibility and operating site planning and assessment. 

Volume 1 – Section 4.13 – Pre-Notification to relevant third parties

Volume 1 – Section 4.20 – Emergency Procedures

Volume 1 – Appendix E – Flight Reference Cards

Claim

Risk number 6B/C in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

Operational planning ensures that the UA is operated in environments where it is permitted to, specifically, that the airspace is safe and not subject to any type of restriction. Checks will further be conducted to identify any abnormal aviation activity that is taking place, such as low-level helicopter inspections, through the RP checking NOTAMS. RP’s will conduct notifications to aviation risk sources, such as when operating in an FRZ, and record nearby aviation source contact details to notify them in the event of a relevant emergency procedure. VLOS is maintained with the aircraft, sufficient for the airspace surrounding the UA to be safely monitored, ensuring that any airspace incursion is correctly monitored and avoiding action taken. Emergency procedures are implemented, and the RP’s will remain current through annual testing. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.4.3 – Emergency Drills and Training

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 1 – Section 4.12 - Methods to determine the intended task feasibility and operating site planning and assessment. 

Volume 1 – Section 4.13 – Pre-Notification to relevant third parties

Volume 1 – Section 4.20 – Emergency Procedures

Volume 1 – Appendix E – Flight Reference Cards

Claim

Risk number 7A/D in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

The TOLS is designated during operations, where the RP deems it necessary, such as when uninvolved persons are within the vicinity of the operation. RP’s receive ongoing training and examination about emergency procedures that have been implemented as part of this safety case. This ensures that the listed emergency procedures are completed correctly. Emergency procedures are implemented to deal with cordon incursions. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.4.3 – Emergency Drills and Training

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 1 – Section 4.16.4 – Cordon Procedures

Volume 1 – Section 4.20 – Emergency Procedures

Claim

Risk number 7B/C in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

The TOLS is designated during operations, where the RP deems it necessary, such as when uninvolved persons are within the vicinity of the operation. RP’s receive ongoing training and examination about emergency procedures that have been implemented as part of this safety case. This ensures that the listed emergency procedures are completed correctly. Emergency procedures are implemented to deal with cordon incursions. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.4.3 – Emergency Drills and Training

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 1 – Section 4.16.4 – Cordon Procedures

Volume 1 – Section 4.20 – Emergency Procedures

Claim

Risk number 8A/D in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

The RP will ensure that a risk assessment is completed relating to sources of RF and GPS interference to reduce the risk of GPS loss. All RPs can operate the UA in non-GPS assisted mode if the GPS signal to the UA is lost. All UAs are capable of being flown in a non-GPS-assisted mode. The Accountable Manager will ensure that both initial and ongoing training relating to flight in non-GPS assisted modes is conducted to ensure that the RP is capable of carrying out the correct emergency procedure to either continue the operation in non-GPS assisted mode or terminate the operation. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.4.3 – Emergency Drills and Training

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.12 - Methods to determine the intended task feasibility and operating site planning and assessment. 

Volume 1 – Section 4.20 – Emergency Procedures

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.6A/B – Positioning, Navigation and Guidance

Claim

Risk number 8B/C in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

The RP will ensure that a risk assessment is completed relating to sources of RF and GPS interference to reduce the risk of GPS loss. All RPs can operate the UA in non-GPS assisted mode if the GPS signal to the UA is lost. All UAs are capable of being flown in a non-GPS assisted mode. The Accountable Manager will ensure that both initial and ongoing training relating to flight in non-GPS assisted modes is conducted to ensure that the RP is capable of carrying out the correct emergency procedure to either continue the operation in non-GPS assisted mode or terminate the operation. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.4.3 – Emergency Drills and Training

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.12 - Methods to determine the intended task feasibility and operating site planning and assessment. 

Volume 1 – Section 4.20 – Emergency Procedures

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.6A/B – Positioning, Navigation and Guidance

Claim

Risk number 9A/D in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

Single points of failure have been identified across all aircraft. Preventative strategies have been implemented, which in general relate to correct operational procedure compliance and correct maintenance of the aircraft. RPs are appropriately trained to ensure that they comply with correct operational procedures, such as utilising checklists. The RP’s will ensure that aircraft do not overfly uninvolved persons at any time during the operation to ensure a significant barrier is in place to prevent collision with an uninvolved person in the event of a SPOF occurring on the UA. A maintenance regime has been implemented that includes targeted maintenance towards SPOF areas of the UA. RP’s will utilise checklists to ensure that the aircraft is correctly inspected for airworthiness during the pre-flight procedures. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.4.3 – Emergency Drills and Training

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 1 – Section 4.20 – Emergency Procedures

Volume 1 – Appendix E – Flight Reference Cards

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.17A – Life Cycles, Maintenance Schedules, Inspections and Repair of UAS

Claim

Risk number 9B/C in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

Single points of failure have been identified across all aircraft. Preventative strategies have been implemented, which in general relate to correct operational procedure compliance and correct maintenance of the aircraft. RPs are appropriately trained to ensure that they comply with correct operational procedures, such as utilising checklists. The RP’s will ensure that aircraft do not overfly uninvolved persons at any time during the operation to ensure a significant barrier is in place to prevent collision with an uninvolved person in the event of a SPOF occurring on the UA. A maintenance regime has been implemented that includes targeted maintenance towards SPOF areas of the UA. RP’s will utilise checklists to ensure that the aircraft is correctly inspected for airworthiness during the pre-flight procedures. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.4.3 – Emergency Drills and Training

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 1 – Section 4.20 – Emergency Procedures

Volume 1 – Appendix E – Flight Reference Cards

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.17A – Life Cycles, Maintenance Schedules, Inspections and Repair of UAS

Claim

Risk number 10A/D in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

The RP will conduct pre-flight checks to ensure that the UA is functioning correctly before any flight being undertaken. After take-off checks ensure that the function of the UA is also checked. The RP will conduct weather checks to ensure that a weather-induced flyway does not occur, particularly paying attention and ensuring that the UA does not operate in wind speeds that exceed the envelope of the UA. Emergency procedures are implemented to ensure that the RP correctly deals with a UAS flyaway incident. This procedure includes notifying nearby sources of aviation risk that have been identified as part of the pre-flight procedures, the contact details of which are readily available to the RP whilst conducting operations. The RP will receive training to ensure that operational procedures are correctly followed, coupled with ongoing procedures relating to emergency procedures to ensure continued competency. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.4.3 – Emergency Drills and Training

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 1 – Section 4.12 - Methods to determine the intended Task Feasibility and operating site planning and Assessment Volume 1 – Section 4.13 – Pre-Notification to relevant third parties.

Volume 1 – Section 4.20 – Emergency Procedures

Volume 1 – Appendix E – Flight Reference Cards

Claim

Risk number 10B/C in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

The RP will conduct pre-flight checks to ensure that the UA is functioning correctly, prior to any flight being undertaken. After take-off checks ensure that the function of the UA is also checked. The RP will conduct weather checks to ensure that a weather-induced flyway does not occur, particularly paying attention and ensuring that the UA does not operate in wind speeds that exceed the envelope of the UA. Emergency procedures are implemented to ensure that the RP correctly deals with a UAS flyaway incident. This procedure includes notifying nearby sources of aviation risk that have been identified as part of the pre-flight procedures, the contact details of which are readily available to the RP whilst conducting operations. The RP will receive training to ensure that operational procedures are correctly followed, coupled with ongoing procedures relating to emergency procedures to ensure continued competency. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.4.3 – Emergency Drills and Training

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 1 – Section 4.12 - Methods to determine the intended Task Feasibility and operating site planning and Assessment Volume 1 – Section 4.13 – Pre-Notification to relevant third parties.

Volume 1 – Section 4.20 – Emergency Procedures

Volume 1 – Appendix E – Flight Reference Cards

Claim

Risk number 12A in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

Loss of C2 link is unlikely as the UA is always operated within the stated C2 range limitations of the aircraft which are provided by the manufacturer. This means that BVLOS distances are specific to aircraft types to ensure that the C2 manufacturer ratings are not exceeded. All UA do however have failsafe RTH capabilities that ensure the control of the UA is not permanently lost, resulting in a flyaway occurring. All pilots have training which ensures they comply with the operation limitations and conditions. BVLOS-specific emergency procedures are implemented, with the RP utilising these to regain the radio link during BVLOS operations. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 1 – Section 4.7 – BVLOS operations, to a maximum distance of 1.5Km from the RP

Volume 1 – Section 4.14 – Crew Communications

Volume 2 – Section 1.2A – The design flight envelope

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.10A – Emergency Recovery and Safety Systems

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.13A – C2 Link

Claim

Risk number 12B in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

Loss of C2 link is unlikely as the UA is always operated within the stated C2 range limitations of the aircraft which are provided by the manufacturer. This means that BVLOS distances are specific to aircraft types to ensure that the C2 manufacturer ratings are not exceeded. All UA do however have failsafe RTH capabilities that ensure the control of the UA is not permanently lost, resulting in a flyaway occurring. All pilots have training which ensures they comply with the operation limitations and conditions. BVLOS-specific emergency procedures are implemented, with the RP utilising these to regain the radio link during BVLOS operations. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 1 – Section 4.7 – BVLOS operations, to a maximum distance of 1.5Km from the RP

Volume 1 – Section 4.14 – Crew Communications

Volume 2 – Section 1.2B – The design flight envelope

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.10B – Emergency Recovery and Safety Systems

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.13B – C2 Link

Claim

Risk number 13A in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

Back-up communications will be carried out during all operations to ensure continuity of operations and communications. There will be a check transmission every 60 seconds to ensure that a communications loss is efficiently detected. A loss of communications will result in the RP and the spotters following the relevant emergency procedures to attempt to regain communications or the operation will be ceased. The RP will provide an on-site briefing to ensure that spotters are competent in BVLOS procedures, particularly the dictated communications procedure and the emergency procedures. The RP will receive training in BVLOS operations and ensure that they remain competent in emergency procedures through annual currency training and examination. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.4.3 – Emergency Drills and Training

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 1 – Section 4.7 – BVLOS operations, to a maximum distance of 1.5Km from the RP

Volume 1 – Section 4.12 - Methods to determine the intended task feasibility and operating site planning and assessment. 

Volume 1 – Section 4.16.5 – Crew communication methods

Volume 1 – Section 4.16.3 – Crew Briefing

Volume 1 – Section 4.20 – Emergency Procedures

Volume 1 – Appendix E – Flight Reference Cards

Volume 2 – Section 1.2A – The design flight envelope

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.10A – Emergency Recovery and safety systems

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.13A – C2 Link

Claim

Risk number 13B in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

Back-up communications will be carried out during all operations to ensure continuity of operations and communications. There will be a check transmission every 60 seconds to ensure that a communications loss is efficiently detected. A loss of communications will result in the RP and the spotters following the relevant emergency procedures to attempt to regain communications or the operation will be ceased. The RP will provide an on-site briefing to ensure that spotters are competent in BVLOS procedures, particularly the dictated communications procedure and the emergency procedures. The RP will receive training in BVLOS operations and ensure that they remain competent in emergency procedures through annual currency training and examination. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.4.3 – Emergency Drills and Training

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 1 – Section 4.7 – BVLOS operations, to a maximum distance of 1.5Km from the RP

Volume 1 – Section 4.12 - Methods to determine the intended task feasibility and operating site planning and assessment. 

Volume 1 – Section 4.16.5 – Crew communication methods

Volume 1 – Section 4.16.3 – Crew Briefing

Volume 1 – Section 4.20 – Emergency Procedures

Volume 1 – Appendix E – Flight Reference Cards

Volume 2 – Section 1.2B – The design flight envelope

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.10B – Emergency Recovery and Safety Systems

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.13B – C2 Link

Claim

Risk number 14A in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

Operational planning ensures that the UA is operated in environments where it is permitted to, specifically, that the airspace is safe and not subject to any type of restriction. Checks will further be conducted to identify any abnormal aviation activity that is taking place, such as low-level helicopter inspections, through the RP checking NOTAMS. RP’s will conduct notifications to aviation risk sources, such as when operating in an FRZ, and record nearby aviation source contact details to notify them in the event of a relevant emergency procedure. VLOS is maintained with the aircraft, either by a spotter or an RP, sufficient for the airspace surrounding the UA to be safely monitored, ensuring that any airspace incursion is correctly monitored and avoiding action taken. The RP will provide an on-site briefing to ensure that spotters are competent in BVLOS procedures, particularly the dictated communications procedure and the emergency procedures and understand how to provide the RP with deconfliction details. Emergency procedures are implemented, and the RP’s will remain current through annual testing. The RP will receive training in BVLOS operations and ensure that they remain competent in emergency procedures through annual currency training. The intervention RP is subject to the same requirements and thus will be familiar with the operational emergency procedures. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.4.3 – Emergency Drills and Training

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 1 – Section 4.7 – BVLOS operations, to a maximum distance of 1.5Km from the RP

Volume 1 – Section 4.12 - Methods to determine the intended task feasibility and operating site planning and assessment. 

Volume 1 – Section 4.13 – Pre-Notification to relevant third parties

Volume 1 – Section 4.16.5 – Crew communication methods

Volume 1 – Section 4.16.3 – Crew Briefing

Volume 1 – Section 4.20 – Emergency Procedures

Volume 1 – Appendix E – Flight Reference Cards

Volume 2 – Section 1.2A – The design flight envelope

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.10A – Emergency Recovery and safety systems

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.13A – C2 Link

Claim

Risk number 14B in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

Operational planning ensures that the UA is operated in environments where it is permitted to, specifically, that the airspace is safe and not subject to any type of restriction. Checks will further be conducted to identify any abnormal aviation activity that is taking place, such as low-level helicopter inspections, through the RP checking NOTAMS. RP’s will conduct notifications to aviation risk sources, such as when operating in an FRZ, and record nearby aviation source contact details to notify them in the event of a relevant emergency procedure. VLOS is maintained with the aircraft, either by a spotter or an RP, sufficient for the airspace surrounding the UA to be safely monitored, ensuring that any airspace incursion is correctly monitored and avoiding action taken. The RP will provide an on-site briefing to ensure that spotters are competent in BVLOS procedures, particularly the dictated communications procedure and the emergency procedures and understand how to provide the RP with deconfliction details. Emergency procedures are implemented, and the RP’s will remain current through annual testing. The RP will receive training in BVLOS operations and ensure that they remain competent in emergency procedures through annual currency training. The intervention RP is subject to the same requirements and thus will be familiar with the operational emergency procedures. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.4.3 – Emergency Drills and Training

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 1 – Section 4.7 – BVLOS operations, to a maximum distance of 1.5Km from the RP

Volume 1 – Section 4.12 - Methods to determine the intended task feasibility and operating site planning and assessment. 

Volume 1 – Section 4.13 – Pre-Notification to relevant third parties

Volume 1 – Section 4.16.5 – Crew communication methods

Volume 1 – Section 4.16.3 – Crew Briefing

Volume 1 – Section 4.20 – Emergency Procedures

Volume 1 – Appendix E – Flight Reference Cards

Volume 2 – Section 1.2B – The design flight envelope

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.10B – Emergency Recovery and Safety Systems

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.13B – C2 Link

Claim

Risk number 15A in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

The VLOS distances are specific to each aircraft to ensure that the risk of losing VLOS with the UA is minimal. If VLOS is lost, emergency procedures will be activated to regain VLOS. The RP will provide an on-site briefing to ensure that spotters are competent in BVLOS procedures, particularly the dictated communications procedure and the emergency procedures. Emergency procedures are implemented, and the RP’s will remain current through annual testing. The RP will receive training in BVLOS operations and ensure that they remain competent in emergency procedures through annual currency training

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.4.3 – Emergency Drills and Training

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 1 – Section 4.7 – BVLOS operations, to a maximum distance of 1.5Km from the RP

Volume 1 – Section 4.16.5 – Crew communication methods

Volume 1 – Section 4.16.3 – Crew Briefing

Volume 1 – Section 4.20 – Emergency Procedures

Volume 1 – Appendix E – Flight Reference Cards

Volume 2 – Section 1.2A – The design flight envelope

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.10A – Emergency Recovery and safety systems

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.13A – C2 Link

Claim

Risk number 15B in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

The VLOS distances are specific to each aircraft to ensure that the risk of losing VLOS with the UA is minimal. If VLOS is lost, emergency procedures will be activated to regain VLOS. The RP will provide an on-site briefing to ensure that spotters are competent in BVLOS procedures, particularly the dictated communications procedure and the emergency procedures. Emergency procedures are implemented, and the RP’s will remain current through annual testing. The RP will receive training in BVLOS operations and ensure that they remain competent in emergency procedures through annual currency training

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.4.3 – Emergency Drills and Training

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 1 – Section 4.7 – BVLOS operations, to a maximum distance of 1.5Km from the RP

Volume 1 – Section 4.16.5 – Crew communication methods

Volume 1 – Section 4.16.3 – Crew Briefing

Volume 1 – Section 4.20 – Emergency Procedures

Volume 1 – Appendix E – Flight Reference Cards

Volume 2 – Section 1.2B – The design flight envelope

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.10B – Emergency Recovery and Safety Systems

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.13B – C2 Link

Claim

Risk number 16A in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

Specific weather guidance exists for all UA subjects of this safety case, in line with manufacturer specifications. The RP will conduct weather checks before an operation is conducted. The Spotter will monitor the operational volume and if they form the opinion that weather conditions have been exceeded, the operation will be aborted, and emergency recovery procedures will be implemented. The RP will provide an on-site briefing to ensure that spotters are competent in BVLOS procedures, particularly the dictated communications procedure and the emergency procedures. Emergency procedures are implemented, and the RP’s will remain current through annual testing. The RP will receive training in BVLOS operations and ensure that they remain competent in emergency procedures through annual currency training

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.4.3 – Emergency Drills and Training

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 1 – Section 4.7 – BVLOS operations, to a maximum distance of 1.5Km from the RP

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Weather

Volume 1 – Section 4.16.5 – Crew communication methods

Volume 1 – Section 4.16.3 – Crew Briefing

Volume 1 – Section 4.20 – Emergency Procedures

Volume 1 – Appendix E – Flight Reference Cards

Volume 2 – Section 1.2A/B – The design flight envelope

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.10A/B – Emergency Recovery and safety systems

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.13 A/B – C2 Link

Claim

Risk number 16B in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

Specific weather guidance exists for all UA subjects of this safety case, in line with manufacturer specifications. The RP will conduct weather checks before an operation is conducted. The Spotter will monitor the operational volume and if they form the opinion that weather conditions have been exceeded, the operation will be aborted, and emergency recovery procedures will be implemented. The RP will provide an on-site briefing to ensure that spotters are competent in BVLOS procedures, particularly the dictated communications procedure and the emergency procedures. Emergency procedures are implemented, and the RP’s will remain current through annual testing. The RP will receive training in BVLOS operations and ensure that they remain competent in emergency procedures through annual currency training

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.4.3 – Emergency Drills and Training

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Operating Limitations and Conditions

Volume 1 – Section 4.7 – BVLOS operations, to a maximum distance of 1.5Km from the RP

Volume 1 – Section 4.1 – Weather

Volume 1 – Section 4.16.5 – Crew communication methods

Volume 1 – Section 4.16.3 – Crew Briefing

Volume 1 – Section 4.20 – Emergency Procedures

Volume 1 – Appendix E – Flight Reference Cards

Volume 2 – Section 1.2A/B – The design flight envelope

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.10A/B – Emergency Recovery and safety systems

Volume 2 – Section 1.3.13 A/B – C2 Link

Claim 

Risk number 21A/D in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

Initially, articles that are not subject to HSE approval will be dropped. These cover pellets, seeds, and non-harmful liquids such as water. The altitude of the DJI Agras systems is restricted to 200ft to allow transiting during flight, however spraying operations shall not be conducted above an altitude of 15M from the surface. The distances to uninvolved persons shall utilise the 1:1 rile wherever the DJI Agras systems are deployed, however, the distance to uninvolved persons shall not be below 50M. Safety boundaries are calculated to ensure that spray drift does not leave the targeted field, with spray boundaries increased when operating near areas where uninvolved persons may be present, to ensure that the 50M separation distances from uninvolved people are complied with. Minimum spray boundaries are calculated through a specific chart within the safety case that increases depending on the height and speed of the UA. The remote pilots will receive training in how to safely conduct spraying operations and how to correctly comply with the operational limitations and conditions that govern the spraying operation. Spray operations will not be conducted within congested areas due to the nature operation being agricultural. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 3.4 – Area of Operations

Volume 1 – Section 3.9 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.1.1 - The Dropping of Articles for Agricultural Purposes & the Operation of a UA of Mass exceeding 25KG.

Claim

Risk number 22A/D in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

Initially, articles that are not subject to HSE approval will be dropped. These cover pellets, seeds, and non-harmful liquids such as water which are of a low level of risk to uninvolved persons. The remote pilots will receive training in how to safely conduct spraying operations and how to correctly comply with the operational limitations and conditions that govern the spraying operation. The operation is conducted within VLOS limits, which enables the operational volume to be correctly observed for any ground incursion to be monitored and appropriately dealt with. If a person is observed, the RP will follow incursion procedures and move the UA away from the uninvolved person. Emergency procedures are implemented, and the RP’s will remain current through annual testing. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 4.2 – Area of Operations

Volume 1 – Section 3.4.3 – Emergency Drills and Training

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.6 - The Dropping of Articles for Agricultural Purposes & the Operation of a UA of Mass exceeding 25KG.

Volume 1 – Section 4.20 – Emergency Procedures

Volume 1 – Appendix E – Flight Reference Cards

Claim

Risk number 23A/D in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

Following approval by the HSE, controlled substances will be dropped, such as pesticides. The altitude of the DJI Agras is restricted to 200ft to allow transiting during flight, however spraying operations shall not be conducted above an altitude of 15M from the surface. The distances to uninvolved persons shall utilise the 1:1 rile wherever the DJI Agras systems are deployed, however, the distance to uninvolved persons shall not be below 50M. Safety boundaries are calculated to ensure that spray drift does not leave the targeted field, with spray boundaries increased when operating near areas where uninvolved persons may be present, to ensure that the 50M separation distances from uninvolved people are complied with. Minimum spray boundaries are calculated through a specific chart within the safety case that increases depending on the height and speed of the UA. Safety boundaries and distances from uninvolved persons ensure that the risk of uninvolved persons coming into contact with a sprayed substance is low. The remote pilots will receive training in how to safely conduct spraying operations and how to correctly comply with the operational limitations and conditions that govern the spraying operation. Spray operations will not be conducted within congested areas due to the nature of the operation being agricultural.

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 4.2 – Area of Operations

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.6 - The Dropping of Articles for Agricultural Purposes & the Operation of a UA of Mass exceeding 25KG.

Claim

Risk number 24A/D in the Hazard and Safety Risk Log has been assessed by the Accountable Manager as Tolerable and ALARP

Argument

Following approval by the HSE, controlled substances will be dropped, such as pesticides. The remote pilots will receive training in how to safely conduct spraying operations and how to correctly comply with the operational limitations and conditions that govern the spraying operation. The operation is conducted within VLOS limits, which enables the operational volume to be correctly observed for any ground incursion to be monitored and appropriately dealt with. If a person is observed, the RP will follow incursion procedures and move the UA away from the uninvolved person. Emergency procedures are implemented, and the RP’s will remain current through annual testing. 

Evidence

Volume 1 – Section 4.2 – Area of Operations

Volume 1 – Section 3.4.3 – Emergency Drills and Training

Volume 1 – Section 3.5 – Competency and qualification requirements including role training and currency.

Volume 1 – Section 4.6 - The Dropping of Articles for Agricultural Purposes & the Operation of a UA of Mass exceeding 25KG.

Volume 1 – Section 4.20 – Emergency Procedures

Volume 1 – Appendix E – Flight Reference Cards