Even if the DHV throws its entire budget together and says we're going to hire lawyers and lobbyists and all that, it still won't stop it. I mean, the drone industry grew by 15 percent last year and they hope to keep that up. We can't compete with that. The amount of money being spent there, which is also supported by the state—we have a far too weak lobby. Even on an EU-wide level, we're doing too poorly.
Podz-Glidz, the Lu-Glidz podcast. Stories from the cosmos of paragliding. Today with Helmut Bach and Lucian Haas at the microphone.
When people think of drones today, they usually have small quadcopters with cameras in mind, remote-controlled by hobbyists. But that's just a toy compared to everything that could be zooming through the skies in the future. Drones for fast package delivery, drones for traffic monitoring, drones for agriculture, drones for inspecting power lines, drones for supplying mountain huts, yes, even drones as air taxis and so on. Many of these drones won't just fly a few hundred meters, but dozens of kilometers. Completely autonomously. So that these flights can be controlled and safe, the EU issued a framework of three so-called implementing regulations in April 2021. They define basic rules and aspects of the so-called Use Rules.
This is a new airspace category that was created specifically for the operation of UAVs. Unmanned aircraft, commonly known as drones. By 2023, EU countries must implement the Use Space regulations into national rules. Now, airspace in general is a scarce resource. And when a new Use Space is added, it doesn't just appear on top; it has to be carved out somehow from what already exists. In short, so that drones have their share of the airspace. And for drones to get their piece of the airspace pie, others have to give something up. Including us paraglider pilots. In order for us not to lose too many freedoms in the process, solutions must be brought to the table. It's about enabling the coexistence of manned and unmanned aviation in the Use Space.
Helmut Bach is conducting such discussions on behalf of the DHV. The former Lufthansa captain and enthusiastic sailing and paraglider enthusiast is currently perhaps the most important lobbyist for airspace issues in the interest of paragliders. The former Lufthansa captain and enthusiastic sailing and paraglider enthusiast. The former Lufthansa captain and enthusiastic sailing and paraglider enthusiast. The former Lufthansa captain and enthusiastic sailing and paraglider enthusiast. The former Lufthansa captain and enthusiastic sailing and paraglider enthusiast. The former Lufthansa captain and enthusiastic sailing and paraglider enthusiast. The former Lufthansa captain and enthusiastic sailing and paraglider enthusiast.
The
former Lufthansa captain and an enthusiastic sailing and paragliding enthusiast.
Click and small, no. Why not? Because I don't really like those things. I don't have any meaningful use for them, I have to be honest. So, to take one or two shots—I'm a terrible photographer. That would only be amplified with terrible shots in the air. So, from that perspective. Have you ever controlled one? Yes, yes, with an acquaintance. He had a Phantom DJI. But that was already a few years ago, in Mauritius. It wasn't that exciting. So, purely from a flying perspective, it's rather boring. And as I said, I don't have any time to sort through all the footage and edit it together. Someone else can do that, that's fine. Are you yourself...
ever encountered a drone in the air while flying?
encountered?
Yeah, there was one a bit further away on our slope. There's a model aircraft field there too. And I assume one of the guys there wanted to film us at some point, but he was so far away that he didn't pose any danger. Still, it was a weird feeling. So, I don't find that very appealing.
How high do you estimate the risk posed by such drones for paragliding?
So it's a purely technical risk. Now, without going into figures regarding how often this happens or will happen in the future—I think anyone can imagine that. With such taut lines and these fast-rotating propellers, which also have very sharp, very sharp leading edges, a line set can be severed relatively quickly. So, that's no small matter. Personally, I wouldn't want to encounter such a thing. Just as I wouldn't want to encounter a model airplane. But drones are a completely different story. And not just for us, but also for other aircraft operators.
Recently, it was mentioned on the DRV website that there is a realistic risk of airspace becoming restricted and commercialized. And this report referred quite specifically to the future use of commercial drones for all sorts of things. It also mentioned a new airspace that we, as paraglider pilots, will somehow have to deal with. The so-called U-Space. And you were also mentioned as the person who deals with such airspace issues and so on for the DRV. What is this U-Space?
So, U-Space is a term that the EU, or rather the ERA, introduced. Basically, due to various regulations—I don't want to go into detail about what they're all called—it was decided that all drones, especially those flying beyond visual line of sight, don't just need to be controlled; they also need to know where the other drones are, what the weather is like on the route, if there are any obstacles, or if the flight profile changes. And then they said this is a so-called set of services, meaning it will provide various services surrounding these drones, and they initially called it U-Space.
So, that's basically the U-Space service. In order for all these drones to be able to fly at all and have an airspace, there's this U-Space airspace. And that's how people usually summarize it and just say it's simply U-Space.
And that is, as I said, a thing from the EU, where they thought about how to integrate the whole thing.
By now, this has a legal basis; it's a framework that the EU adopted in 2021.
And the implementation of what the EU passed—the implementation of U-Space in the individual countries—is, of course, up to the member states. So the EU doesn't dictate, like, Germany or you all have to design it this way or that, but just says that something like this should exist. You have to have a U-Space, a U-Space service, and airspace. And how big, how small, how high, how deep—that's all left up to you. That's, in very broad terms, what this U-Space is.
If I understand correctly, U-Space is, on the one hand, like a legal framework for the use of drones. Right. So that's the legal space. And at the same time, you're saying there's U-Space as airspace, where you say, if I bring a drone into this airspace, they move there and are categorized accordingly based on those legal requirements—I also call this airspace U-Space. And the drones have to be located in this airspace in some way. Right, yes, exactly. What does that actually mean for us immediately? Recreational glider pilots—so far, we haven't had U-Space in any way, not even airspace designated as U-Space. And if you say it like that, then there's supposed to be some in the future. Does that mean airspace is being taken away from us? Yes, that is
simply put, that's how you can answer it. We are going to lose some freedoms. To smooth out the details for a moment: at the moment, when people talk about U-Space, they're mainly referring to the altitude band from 0 to 120 meters. There's already implementation by commercial drones, for example, a large project by MediFly is currently running in Hamburg,
They transport blood samples and tissue samples over distances of up to 40 kilometers, all within this so-called urban area. And that's the first thing they want to tackle or address with this U-Space. At the moment, it's essentially a restricted airspace, an EDR, as we know it from military exercises. But they are ultimately EDRs with the function of a U-Space. So there's a certain service, there are ad hoc Wi-Fi connections, there's weather information, there are collision warnings. And all of this is already happening currently. And this U-Space, as I just said, currently goes up to 120 meters. That's about what model aircraft are allowed to do. But of course, there's already a lot of talk about the airspace, about the Golf airspace, which goes up to a maximum of 2,500 feet.
And on some of the slides, I'm looking at one right now, it goes partly up to Flight Level 185, so up to 18,500 feet. However, those are these larger drones that people imagine as sort of passenger taxis later on. Whether that whole thing actually happens is more of a question. The lateral dimensions of this U-Space are simply not defined at the moment. And that's the big crux; nobody knows how it's supposed to be properly represented right now. And of course, the drone industry would love the entire Golf airspace.
I was at a conference recently and they said it twice in a row: why don't we just make the entire airspace a U-Space? And someone else said that if such an airspace becomes such an important asset, such an important economic good, then particular interests like paraglider pilots or aviation sports participants would have to take a backseat. I was fuming. I mean, I have to hold back a bit. But you can see the direction it's heading. Fortunately, the representatives of the BMVI shot that down for now. He said it makes no sense. But at the moment, no one really knows what the lateral layout should look like. Above all, the mission profiles are also constantly changing.
And then you'd have to deal with a new flight route popping up every few minutes or whatever. So, to summarize the question for now: Yes, there is U-Space at the moment, but it's not called that and ultimately results in an EDR. And what the future U-Space will look like exactly and where it's headed hasn't been determined yet.
But just to start with the idea of where we currently stand, the EU has issued corresponding guidelines, or I think even a regulation or something, stating that a so-called U-Space must definitely be established by the member states. Right.
Yes, exactly.
And that can be decided by each member state. One could say, look, for example, between Gelsenkirchen and Bochum, I'm establishing a small flight route. You drones can all fly through there. Everything else is not authorized or something like that. That would be one possibility. Yes. But it would also be conceivable to say, we're going into the open area, and you basically define the entire airspace of golf as one large U-Space. Does that automatically mean U-Space always, that no one else is allowed to fly there?
No, that's not it. Ultimately, it's about integrating drones into the airspace. So it doesn't mean isolation or segregation; rather, they want to bring drones and manned aviation together somehow. That's why the EU's requirement is that if manned aviation is in the U-Space, it must electronically identify its position. That means you have to transmit your position to the U-Space provider in some way. It's a pretty stupid thing, of course. For one thing, I don't know who the U-Space provider is. As a paraglider, I have no desire to find out either. But it will probably be the case that a technical system is developed where the position report is simply broadcast generally.
And someone then downloads it from the server. That's the U-Space Provider. And then they know where we are.
Can I just jump in for a second, just so people understand. You've used this term U-Space Provider twice now. Is that like a kind of air traffic control for U-Space, which then passes the relevant airspace data on to the... whatever drones, pilots, or whatever automated drones, pilots, or whatever they are?
Exactly. It's like German air traffic control, which would, of course, love to have a say in that too. Not under its original name, obviously, but this service provider, exactly. It's something like air traffic control for drones.
And if I imagine that now, there's basically a U-Space defined, no matter how big it is. For this U-Space, there's supposed to be a so-called U-Space Service Provider that, in a sense, controls or coordinates the corresponding flight operations or whatever, however you imagine it. Right. And this U-Space Provider would then have to be informed in some way about paragliding, where the paraglider is, so that it can communicate that back to the drones. Is that basically what's expected in the future?
Exactly. We have to make our position known. That is clearly regulated in the EU regulation,
so that these drones, which are equipped with a so-called Detect and Avoid system, then know where we are. And then they can either automatically or via a drone guide—I always call it a drone pilot, I'm a bit hesitant to call it a drone guide—fly a corresponding avoidance maneuver. The system hasn't been finalized yet. And that's why you can't even say how it will be transmitted at all. And of course, all sorts of ideas came up. You could use a transponder. We know that. For purely technical reasons, that's not possible with a paraglider. It's incredibly expensive to begin with. And the thing also has an incredible transmission power, which is very unhealthy.
And you have to attach a special antenna in a special shape. The thing needs a lot of battery. So, none of that is feasible. Plus, the DFS in the investigation—we provided data there—also determined that it wouldn't be feasible at all if all paragliders were theoretically equipped with transponders. And it goes way beyond ADS-B, ADS-B-Light, all the way down to its mobile solution, where you play your position on the server with your cell phone. And as I said earlier, the use-based service provider can pull down the position.
But in terms of the concept, the service provider is still always in the middle. Like an intermediary. But you also said earlier that the drones themselves should actually have some kind of obstacle detection system and be able to recognize me as a paraglider as an aerial obstacle. In that case, the detour through a service provider would actually be too much. Is there supposed to be something where the drone basically sees me automatically, regardless of which electronic system it uses?
That exists. But at the moment, for one thing, it's still very expensive. Yes. And you have to say, it's very bulky. It's called so-called Sense-in-the-Void, that's what they call it a bit, SAA. There are two companies that are quite good, at least two companies in the German-speaking region—one in Switzerland and one in Thuringia, I believe. Spleen Labs and Denaleen from that firm. In the US, Amazon is quite good. This Sense-in-the-Void, they do it optically with lasers, with infrared, and these parts are incredibly good. But as I said, it's very, very, very expensive. And I've just looked at one of those systems,
when I was in Cologne at the European Drone Forum. That's already, let's say, a bigger cup of coffee. So, it's a coffee market of that size. And that's not cheap technology. So, it won't be in the smaller drones for now. But there are drones that have something like that built in. The unfortunate thing is that the legislator isn't pushing for it. It's like, yeah, if it ever exists, then you could build it in. But the legislator is making things easy for himself, of course. He naturally wants to help the drone industry get on its feet. And he just says, look, you have to identify yourselves, you aviation enthusiasts.
And we'll handle the rest. It doesn't have to be someone doing it manually. It can certainly be done automatically, with a latency of two or three seconds. That's enough for our speeds and the speeds of those drones. But "Sense and Avoid" is unfortunately, unfortunately not yet provided for in the legal framework.
Well, maybe it's not even really necessary if you make your own position known in some other way, and then the drone knows, okay, I should definitely avoid this position with at least a 30, 50, or 100-meter safety distance. And then it maneuvers to avoid it.
Which would probably be feasible with such electronic reporting systems. But you said earlier that in all this discussion, it hasn't even been thought through or fully thought through in any way how this is to be implemented technically. Isn't it a bit strange that the EU, on one hand, is already making regulations and saying they should be implemented by this or that date, and on the other hand, it's actually not clear at all technically how something like that can work. Yes,
That's just how politics is sometimes. Always blustering forward and then seeing what kind of mess is left behind. It's a bit of a joke now. But it's like this: the drone industry itself demanded that the EU and Germany finally create a legal framework so that we can fly. And that started back in 2015. And Germany had already basically expanded the Air Traffic Regulations so that drones were included in them, and the EU picked that up too. And now they've just put it out there. They said, "Yes, you must be electronically identifiable," and basically translated that into German as "the method still needs to be figured out."
And now everyone is tinkering with different solutions. Because we know about Flamen. Many already have a Vario with Flamen. It's not exactly cheap. And it also has the disadvantage that it's not open source. For all other things, you can always rebuild them openly. But with Flamen, you always have to pay license fees. By the way, in our case, it's always the device manufacturer who makes the Vario—Skytrax or Bräuninger—who pays Flamen a small fee, and then it's done. That can be done with Flamen. I think that would be a viable solution.
And there is... That would also be
something that could even be implemented directly from a technical standpoint. Because the technology exists. It's also small enough. We could integrate it into these drones as a flame detector, just as easily.
It also has a huge other advantage. We already have a problem with seeing and being seen. You know, I fly other things too. We always want it to work well. But unfortunately, it just doesn't. And I myself have experienced some really hairy situations; it was just a matter of luck that I'm still sitting here now. And even when I'm out in the sailplane, I'm sometimes shocked when I see my paraglider how fast I'm getting on it. Sometimes it's suddenly flying along in the cloud at 180, 200. And I'm always glad if I have some kind of flame on my small traffic display and see, oh, there's one up ahead.
I can already start looking into that direction. And this flame wouldn't just be helpful if we're flying in U-Space later on, but generally, it would just be a great thing. The second thing would be a mobile communications solution. There are other solutions because we just talked about it, it's not finalized yet. What people also want is something called ADS-B. You just have to Google that for now until I've explained everything. It's a similar standard to a commercial transponder in airplanes. Only you can send additional information with it. That would, of course, be what they'd really like. Because then they don't just see our position, they also see the direction vector. You can input which aircraft type it is.
Then you know immediately whether it's a paraglider or this other thing. You can do something similar with the FLARM as well. But the drones would have direct information from other aircraft via this ADSB link—what type it is and what the weather is like there. And you can send along a lot of stuff. You can even upload clearances.
But on one hand, that's incredibly expensive and it's always on the same frequency as the transponders. And the DFS, even the ICAO itself, is saying, "Please leave this frequency free because it's already overloaded." We already have enough outages. We don't need to pave it with drones now. Then there's ADSB-Light. That works with less transmission power. It would be conceivable, maybe they'd charge a bit more for us paraglider and hang glider pilots. We'd need completely new devices. Honestly, I don't see that happening at all. Only that other people have an advantage, or rather, the drone industry has an advantage. And the system I mentioned earlier is a mobile network solution. There's a very clever solution there.
from Belgium. It's called Safe Sky. Safe Sky App. If you take a look at the thing, it first looks like Open Glider Network or whatever all the old ones look like. But while flying, you can switch to a so-called traffic mode. It's like a small radar shield. It uses very little power and transmits minimal data. I tried it out last time in the UL. We were at 8,500 feet and I still received data. It goes over 2G. 3G is already switched off. 2G, 4G, 5G. And because they are such tiny data packets, that's enough for it as long as it gets any network or something. The thing is really great. We would just have to use as many as possible.
But that would be a solution that the EU also sees. I mean, the EU already recognizes that a mobile device would also be a common solution for electronic traceability.
But if you extrapolate a bit into the future from everything you've just told me, it means for us paraglider pilots, we have to prepare for the fact that at some point in the future, we won't be able to take to the air without carrying some kind of electronic device that makes us detectable.
Yeah, that could happen. And I'm a bit against that. I mean, not just me, we're all a bit against it. Because let's just imagine, let's say we go to the slope for a moment. The weather is just so-so. Or you have a practice slope. Now, the practice slope slides down a bit. It doesn't matter at all whether I'm flying there or not, something like that. And I don't want to be electronically detectable or anything like that either. It just doesn't make any sense. And if I look at the flight profile or the behavior profile of most of our paragliders, then 90 percent of our pilots are just flying back and forth at the slope. Why should they have to be constantly electronically detectable? Apart from that, you have to look at the glider,
you're being way too pessimistic. Suddenly there are two flame symbols everywhere. You can't get out of the warning zone at all. So my idea—and this is just pure speculation, we haven't talked about whether this is feasible, if it's a common concept or anything like that—but I think what we're facing is simply someone saying, "Look, you have a certain area where you can practice paragliding. You don't need to be detectable there. But if you fly beyond that, like if you fly away from the slope or do cross-country or something, then you have to be electronically detectable." I think that's what we're heading towards. And I would wish for us to have a protected zone around our paraglider takeoff and landing sites of, say, 1.5 kilometers, depending on the height.
I'm talking about the flatlands now. Our mountains are at most 200 meters high. They vary in height, averaging about 100 meters. In that case, a one-kilometer radius around the start and landing field would be enough. And they usually don't fly beyond that anyway. Of course, there are some who do a cross-country flight. And they just have to take a transponder with them. That would be a conceivable solution. But as I said, I'm just talking into the blue here; the proposal hasn't been made yet, nor has it been coordinated in any way.
That means, in any case, if such a solution were to come about, it would mean that much more complex airspace concepts would have to be in place in the future. Because basically, for every model airfield, every paraglider launch site, every paraglider landing field, or whatever, a separate U-Space, free space, or whatever would have to be set up so that flying is permitted there accordingly.
Yeah, I don't think that's quite right either. I'm not saying that this has been our playground until now. This hasn't been our airspace, of course. Other people fly there too. But the vehemence with which the drone industry is now demanding this airspace from us—or I'll put it bluntly, just wants to take it away or whatever—I have to say, we really have to make some concessions. We aren't just going to let them take it away without a fight. You say
take away. In the discussions you're having in this area, is it really about taking it away, or is it just about saying, hey, we want this access to the airspace as a drone? Ideally, I'd like it so that I can fly my drone wherever I want eventually. So that, basically, the entire G airspace would be defined as U-space in some way. But then I want every other participant who also enters my U-space to be able to identify me as a drone pilot.
Yes, that is exactly the demand.
That doesn't mean they're pushing us out, it just means they're saying, okay, you have to rearrange things.
Well, you can see it that way. Is that right? That's exactly what the demand is. And of course, it'll make things a lot easier for the guys if we weren't around. I mean, they all know that General Aviation, except for takeoff and landing, doesn't fly around at 500 meters or, sorry, 500 feet—maybe a helicopter does.
But we aviation enthusiasts are primarily the ones using the lower airspace, and maybe a glider if it has to land outside or scrapes along a bit low somewhere. But even if I'm in a glider, when I'm up at 150 meters, I'm looking for a landing field. But that's it, exactly. So that's the demand. Either you give us the airspace entirely, or at least you have to be recognizable there. But that's no small feat. We have 40,000 paragliders, something like that, or maybe even a bit more. If they all have to equip themselves just so someone else can use our airspace, I think that's quite a big ask. So you have to find a way to arrange something there.
If you read through a bit of what the drone industry wants, it's not always about these toy drones with the little cameras that everyone has nowadays, but these are always transport drones,
Medical transport, Amazon drones, or some other logistics providers who want to do something there, and other things. From what I've read at least, a lot of that—in terms of the vision—basically takes place in urban areas. So, over cities, directly over residential areas. As paragliders, we move like that much less or rather rarely, I'd say. Or only at a corresponding height, or if something really went wrong. Wouldn't a U-Space for us—meaning, if U-Spaces are primarily set up over cities and such regulations are found there—actually not be something where we say, it doesn't really affect us as paragliders at all for now?
Now I'm thinking, what's actually there? Merkur, Baden-Baden, Heidelberg is also a launch site. What shows in the city? Oh, there are already a few launch sites that are quite close to the city and where the landing field is also on the outskirts. And this urban space isn't always precisely defined. There are such vague definitions, but what is urban space? Which city is meant by that? What is a small town, a large city, something else? It's true, at 150 meters we won't be flying over the city. I'm also involved in various committees regarding the integration of drones into the airspace, and I also talk to the manufacturers and the developers and so on.
They naturally don't want to stop there. And I mean, that makes sense for us too. Let's say I have a small machine construction company. Amazon has the part sitting in Koblenz. It's based in Kreuznach. And I say, look, my million-dollar machine is here. Do you have the part? Yes, I have the part. Then please send it to me. And then it's no longer urban space. It flies from one urban center to another. And I have it fifteen minutes later. Then I don't care what it costs. That means it won't stop at the urban space. I don't believe it stays there.
On the other hand, designating everything as a use base—now, let's say, paving over the entire landscape with it—doesn't make any sense either, because the farmer who wants to inspect his vineyard or spray his field, which is a very sensible application, flies around at five meters high maybe twice a year or something. Why does he need a use base or something like that? Anyway, there have to be two or three people standing at the edge of the field watching where he flies along and assessing all that. He doesn't need a use base service provider or a use base at all.
But it would make sense to connect larger cities, like Mainz, Wiesbaden, and Frankfurt. That will happen at the latest when all these air taxis that are supposed to fly autonomously arrive. So, for now, it's urban, but it's guaranteed to go beyond that area. You
you say it's guaranteed. If I say that right now, I can still, in quotation marks, completely freely go paragliding. Based on what you know from your conversation with the drone people and stuff like that, when would you say this U-Space topic will become truly relevant in practice for us paragliders?
So the federal government wants to present a first draft in February 2022, which is next year, on how the U-Space is to be integrated in Germany.
But there's nothing that could be put on the table just yet. Everything is still up in the air. EU Regulation 664 of 2021 is already in force, and it has to be implemented by February 2023. That means by then, the member states have to present a concept and say, "Look, this is what our U-Space looks like and this is how the electronic identification works." That means, at the latest, it's going to start hitting us a bit by then. So, I'd say in about a year and a half, we'll be facing the problem that some states—I think it already happened in Denmark—will simply say, "We don't really know how we're going to do this yet, so we're just closing the airspace."
Now, you'll just be flying, and it'll be an EDR, the drones will be flying at that point, and everyone else will have to get clearance. So, as I said, in about a year and a half, I think the issue will be there at the latest.
But do you think the issue will be at the point where you really have to say, as a paraglider, I might have to consider an investment now, because I actually have to invest in some kind of electronic device?
Yes, I believe so, exactly.
Regardless of all this Use-Base stuff, we have a bit of a problem anyway,
These airfields and glider sites are subject to various paragraphs—Paragraph 6 of the LuftVO and then number 54 for the glider sites—they all have a protection zone around them. These are also those...
helicopter landing sites sometimes have such a protection. And that is, if I, as a normal hobby pilot—so, as I said, regardless of the Use-Base—if I start my drone as a hobby pilot, I'm well advised to first check if I'm even allowed to fly here, if I'm too close to Frankfurt Airport, too close to some hospital, too close to somewhere, whatever. There's an app for that, I check it, and it says I'm far enough away, I can take off. That there is a paraglider site, he doesn't see that at all at first and he naturally thinks, oh, that's not in my app here, so I'm allowed to fly here too, and then he flies around in our sites for example or something. That is also a legal framework that I would like to have clarified, so not just until 2023, that's already done, that's what I would like to have clarified now.
That's why we're also here with the legislature saying, look, we want a protection zone too, we urgently need it, otherwise something is going to happen eventually.
That means the drone people want their airspace, the paraglider pilots want their airspace, and everyone is lobbying in their own interest. You're an expert and also a representative of the DHV, so you're always on the ground. Yes. So, you're basically, I'd say, the airspace lobbyist for the DHV at various locations, events, and so on, especially when it comes to these political discussions. How do you actually imagine your work there? I mean, where are you really active?
So, independent of the drones, there are a few committees, like Airprox, for dangerous approaches and so on. But regarding the drones themselves,
How should I put it, where do I even start? The UAV or the DHV is part of the UAV umbrella organization. That's the umbrella association for the drone industry, and the German-speaking one now has almost all of Europe under its wing.
The DHV is a member of this UAV umbrella, and we do that, like many other associations, just to hear a bit of what's slowly developing there. I mean, they are all very well-connected and they always know exactly the latest news coming from the EU. That's why we're involved, and there are one or two specialist groups. There are often seminars and conferences. I attend those and listen to them. Every now and then there's also a working group or a specialist group for integration. I'm currently in one: airspace integration in Germany. And there you sit with a small circle, eight to ten people, you sit together and say, for example, what are your problems?
Then, for example, I clearly state what our flight profile is, what we can do, and what we can't. That was interesting recently, just this past November. And this lady asked, "How high do you fly? 50 meters or 100 meters?" And I said, "No, we fly exactly like gliders. We fly up to just under 10,000 feet, and over the Alps up to 12,500. And we fly in every corner, and I don't want to say in every type of weather, but if it's flyable in any way, we're up there." And she found it unbelievable that there are over 40,000 of us flying there. I clarify that a bit. And then, of course, there are these comments, so the EU,
when they want to pass a law or a regulation, there's a draft phase beforehand—a draft that has to be commented on. Then, once that draft is written, there's another opinion on it. That can be commented on again. In the beginning, we did that through UAV DACH because they always had those forms ready immediately. It took a while until I figured out how to get to it without going through European Air Sports or EHPU, via UAV DACH. Now I have my own account and I get the notifications directly from the EU. Look, there's a new draft here, there's something new to comment on. So, in the end,
that I get some kind of pop-up email at least every other day saying there's something to do, something to read, and something to take action on. I then do that, I comment on it. Sometimes that then goes to the EHPU, our European DACH association.
And then it gets multiplied again, so to speak. And then the EU or the EASA doesn't just get one voice, but voices from several countries. Those are the kinds of things I do in this drone sector.
Are you seen that way, because you also say EHPU, which is now the European Hang Gliding and Paragliding Union. Are you basically the most important European airspace lobbyist for us paraglider pilots? Oh my god.
I don't know. I can't say that for sure. But it's just, well, in the EHPU, I'm the only one doing airspace drones. That's just how it is. Yeah, you could put it that way. Of course, there are others who are just as... who are smarter than I am. A few Italians, they have someone at European Air Sports who is very clever and so, who is also a programmer. He helps us out a lot too. But as far as paragliders are concerned, that's right. Yeah, exactly. I'm the only one who's really digging into that at the moment. So, that's how it is. It's difficult to get it from other countries. That's the way it is.
Of course, Germany is the largest paragliding community. We are simply the strongest association and a lot happens here. But sometimes it is already difficult to get information from France. How is it going there with drones? What is the legislation like in England? That's going well.
But what about places where we also like to fly, like Slovakia and the whole Kremlin? It's so difficult to get information there. I mean, implementing the EU regulation in the respective countries is a real Sisyphus task. So, to the question,
I'm hesitant to say it, but I think that's the case.
Now, simply because you mention the implementation of this EU regulation in the various countries. If you imagine a worst-case scenario, it could be that Germany comes up with a different solution than France, who comes up with a different solution than Spain. Purely theoretically speaking. So that you'd say, okay, in Germany you have to fly with a flare, in France with app XY, and the Spaniards propose a different ADSB or whatever other electronic solution and so on. Could something like that really happen? Or is it the case that with topics like these, there are things like pioneer countries, or that Germany perhaps has a role model function, where you'd say that whatever Germany decides at some point, the other countries will also adopt, especially the smaller ones or something like that. How do you see the discussion there?
That's several questions at once. I'll maybe start from the end. It's true that Germany is kind of breaking ground there. I wouldn't necessarily call it a pioneering role. In England, it's quite far along in Northern Germany. But it's like, the others don't really have a plan. I hope you don't take offense at my phrasing, but they're already looking at what Germany is doing and then we hope to be able to adopt it. And theoretically, of course, it could happen that everyone still says, "Well, they've established their own detection system." That also depends a bit on the infrastructure. I mean, for ADS-B, you need ground stations and so on. That has to be created first. So the state also has to put money into it.
What might prevent that a bit is simply the cross-border drone traffic. Of course, drones don't want to have to carry a second system along when, I don't know, they fly from Mannheim to Colmar into France. And I believe that technical feasibility alone will lead to, or result in, the countries eventually harmonizing. So that's probably how it will be. And I hope to write a letter to the people in charge at the EU as well, a Señora Ruiz. She still hasn't really understood how much, how high, and how far we actually fly at all, and what needs we have, what we can do, and what we don't have.
I still don't quite understand it, but they met in Cologne. And this is one of those issues where we have to say, look, we need a solution that isn't just local, but cross-border across the entire EU.
and as cheap as possible for us.
If you always say that the drone associations don't really understand what our needs in aviation are or how we fly, and now you're saying the woman from the EU doesn't really know either—then, as far as I understand, an enormous amount of clarification work would actually have to be done in the end. Now, to ask quite heretically: for such an important topic, for us paraglider pilots as an important topic, is it actually enough just to send you to such committees? I mean...
To be honest, when I see the scale of the effort and the enthusiasm behind this drone industry that's currently exploding, I mean, they sometimes have double-digit legal teams—they don't just show up with one lawyer or a legal consultancy. Just at this European Drone Forum alone,
five or six lectures, and one of them did a doctoral thesis on it, examining it from a legal framework like this, the other does it like that. There were already six lawyers there, and I took a little look at the name tags—so there are a lot of Dr. Jos and all that going around. I believe that even if the DHV pooled its entire budget and said, "We're hiring lawyers and lobbyists and everything else now," it still won't stop it. I mean, the drone industry grew by 15 percent last year and they hope to keep going like that. We can't compete with that. We can provide information, we can try to find a way to coexist with them, and that's a bit more... that's how I see my task more.
I don't see our task as preventing it, which is why I have to inform people, sit on various committees, and talk to people, and I also need to have some kind of proposal. But as I said, the financial effort being driven there, which is also supported by the state, we have a far too small lobby for that. Even on an EU-wide level, we are doing poorly.
If you say now that it can't be prevented, that U-Space is coming, and that drones will always assert themselves more strongly or at least take up more space in some way. We will have to adapt to that somehow, probably with electronic devices that make us recognizable in some way. That costs something, too. So, in the end, we'll be paying something for it. Are there also discussions about who is actually supposed to cover these costs? Is the drone industry doing it, or do we have to pay out of our own pockets so that the drones are allowed to fly, or what does that look like?
That was a really hot topic. Exactly. So the Swiss, for example, within the framework of... there are some funds that are somehow released for aviation safety. To make the whole thing financially bearable, every Swiss pilot received a subsidy. So they could buy a FLARM. And in England, it's also the case that the English aviation authority, the CAA, said, look, from 2023 you all have to be electronically visible. And it's also being financially supported. Then of course, there was a huge drama at first because they had forgotten the paragliders again. Yes, paragliders don't have a license. Then the British somehow patched that up, they said, well, anyone who has a B-license, that is,
We also learned about air rights and all that. So, long story short, they covered more than 50 percent of the acquisition costs for something like a Sky Echo 2, which is a kind of ADS-B Light or FLARM. Then you could choose, I could buy it, and that was it. When I brought up the topic at a recent meeting, they immediately said, "Well, why? You have to pay for the seatbelt too. It's not like the state pays for the seatbelt in your car." I thought that comparison was completely ridiculous. But that's how they think; they say you get something out of it if you buy a FLARM or an ADS-B or whatever, because then you're electronically visible and you can use our U-Space.
That they basically took that airspace away from us first—I'll say it's a bit heretical. I mean, that felt a bit like the Mafia to me. But the fact that they brought up this seatbelt argument a few times, that must be very popular with them. But it's completely flawed, it's total nonsense. But, well, that's how it is. That's the direction they're taking.
But if I understand correctly, programs like those in Great Britain or Switzerland, where funding is distributed for this, are also only limited in time. That means pilots would benefit from it if, say, in five years someone does a training course and says, "I want to buy the corresponding equipment now," then they'd be told, "You have to buy the electronic—whatever it is—so, this transmission electronics for it, directly with it." If it's just a simple flare, that would then cost, say, another 150 euros extra or something like that.
I have to admit, I hadn't really thought about the fact that it's time-limited. That is how it is, though. I could look into how it works in England, whether it's actually time-limited or if it's still ongoing. In Switzerland, my Swiss colleagues only told me there was once this funding from a subsidy pool that could be used for that, but I don't know if it will reappear.
Could this setup of U-Spaces or these new airspaces actually mean that we as pilots, as paraglider pilots who have held our licenses for quite a bit longer in some cases, would have to undergo some kind of further training regarding airspace? Like a kind of mandatory refresher course where you get an additional certificate at the end saying, "Now you're also trained on how to deal with U-Spaces or other things"?
So there's nothing, nothing is planned and that's probably how it will be. Sometimes the drone people, they do a sort of mini drone license, but there it only—yeah, almost only on the sidelines—it only deals a bit with the airspace. I don't think that's going to happen for us. I mean, our airspace training is already very, very advanced, and then at some point, I mean everyone knows what an EDR is today, or should know what an EDR is, or an HX airspace or whatever, and then at some point there's just a message for aviators, for NFL, and it says, then there's the U-Space in this lateral display there and there, and please ensure electronic visibility in, what do I know, in the flame or something, or just for electronic visibility.
Done. I don't think much more will happen. I don't believe that.
That's the reason, it just occurred to me, someone from the BMVI said recently that the airspace always remains the same. Golf stays Golf, Echo stays Echo. So the same minimum weather conditions apply, the same avoidance rules apply. So if we have two identical aircraft in U-Space now, it doesn't mean we're only allowed to move on a path. We still maneuver just like before. We have to monitor the same weather conditions, and if you're coming from the right, I have to yield to you. It's exactly the same as before.
You were a Lufthansa captain for a long time yourself, flying very large aircraft. Specifically regarding the topic of drones, when do you think large-scale aviation or large commercial aviation will basically eventually become drone operations?
So it will happen. When? Oh god, I can't say exactly. But it's already like this: the A350, the new one that Cargolux is supposed to get—at least that's the plan—and Honda is also getting this A330neo. Both of those already have single-pilot certification. These are important aircraft where you'd normally like to have two people in the cockpit. It's enough if one pilot is in there, and if they happen to fall asleep, for example, during a sudden loss of pressure, rapid decompression, the plane does that automatically. The pilot up front doesn't have to do anything at all. And what's really new, something we as conventional pilots never thought was possible, is that there's an automatic take-off.
Both planes can do that. That means these engine failures during takeoff—so, engine failure at takeoff or a tire burst or something like that—this plane is supposed to be able to handle that. That means you can sit in there from start to finish, you can actually watch the thing. Today, we already do automatic landings in bad weather. We all know that. And guiding the plane there, well, that still takes a pilot to some extent. But it can all be done. So I believe that we,
I'd say around the 2030s, when the first planes and the pilot are in there, there might still be someone in there pro forma. But they won't have to do much anymore.
That means, if you look at it from that perspective, it actually means that when we talk about U-Space, when large-scale aviation eventually starts to emerge, at the latest then, we'd eventually say, yes, U-Space won't just be airspace G at the bottom, but will be extended to whatever height is needed, and to say that this is now a truly automated operation where some U-Space Service Providers then provide the corresponding flight routes for them. So, at the latest, we as paraglider pilots would definitely have to integrate accordingly at whatever altitude that might be.
No, it can't be like that right now, because this commercial traffic is already in protected airspace, whether it's airspace C or D or something like that. We're always moving in airspace where there's mixed traffic—meaning this EIA traffic and the VLA traffic. But in C and D, while there is also VLA traffic, it just has to follow instructions. So this, I'll say, 830 drone or whatever you want to call the thing, it will fly in protected airspace where we don't fly anyway. The DFS will continue to do that too. They will also monitor it technically. They won't let anyone take their lunch. That's their own business and it will stay that way. And in the end, the controller won't care at all, that's how it will be eventually, whether he tells them, hey, watch out,
left turn on course 140 or he just types it in and the plane does it. So it doesn't matter, the DFS handles that. So that won't happen. That
is more of a topic for air taxis or whatever else you were just saying.
Yeah, although with air taxis—if you talk to people from the drone industry over a beer—most of them say it's just a stillbirth. There are a few exotic applications for it. Maybe in, as people mockingly say, the sandbox in Saudi Arabia down there or in the Emirates.
They can afford that. They can play around with that. They own the airspace anyway. The Chinese could do something like that too. But it doesn't solve mobility problems. It doesn't solve the traffic problem, nor is it particularly green. I mean, the thing has to be charged too. The electricity really has to be, well, produced sustainably. Otherwise, the thing doesn't just run on solar energy. So these air taxis, they won't happen to the extent they are sometimes portrayed. I don't see that as a problem. But this air freight is more interesting because, as we already had in the example earlier, logistically it often makes sense to say, man, I have to transport a part quickly over a larger distance.
And then I need that right there, exactly.
Now, just to summarize from your perspective. As a paraglider pilot, if you follow all these discussions—and you're very close to them—does this really worry you as a paraglider pilot? Or do you say that something is just coming that we can't prevent? We just have to see how we can come out of it as well as possible in the end.
You've put that nicely, because ultimately, how you react to something like this is a matter of character. And I have to say, I have two hearts beating in my chest. Sometimes I think, what can I not say, what a load of rubbish, but also... and if an EU official says to our faces, "You will be losing your freedom" if you don't watch out today, then something like that does scare me. I think, damn it, hacker... I mean, normal flying, like, man, today I've shown up and I can just, oh, today it's going really well, now I'm staying on the cloud street and flying past here and there and landing there. That's carefree. That won't be possible anymore. On the other hand, it's like, if the regulations are set and we can buy electronic detectability in a relatively inexpensive way,
then she's also fine with it. We have advantages too. Not that it benefits the NewSpace people, but we're also against ourselves. I mean, there aren't just paragliders, as I said, there are sailplanes, there are hang gliders and ULs. If they see us, that helps us too. It's not just about the drones,
Bottom line, would you say that in the end, this development is a bad one for you, or is it one where you'd say, bottom line, we can still live with it relatively well, if at least we end up with maybe just having to carry one flame with us and not some other...
...rules still have to be followed. Exactly, that's the last thing. We can live with that, and the development isn't that bad at all.
But as I said, we've reached a bit of an agreement today regarding this NewSpace stuff. Specialized. But there are already a few things I've mentioned briefly before, regarding this protection zone around it.
That worries me a bit. In 2019 alone, we had 54 closures of large airports—some partial, some complete. And it's not out of the question that the drone people will eventually start coming up our hill or think, "How great would it be to fly there?" Or, to put it even worse, if someone wants to prevent us from flying, they could just take off with their drone from the neighboring property and fly around our area. Then none of us will be taking to the air anymore. So, I see it as a bit of a mixed bag.
feelings. So, at the end of the day, it could mean that we might lose some of our flight areas. For example, you mentioned something like Heidelberg earlier. If they say they want to establish a very extensive NewSpace over urban areas, then those types of steps—launch sites—might just fall away.
Oh, I don't think so. I mean, we spoke with someone from the BMVI recently and they told me that, ultimately, there is room in this regulation to do something like geofencing. So, if you say, "Look, we're flying from one edge of the city to the other," then it's certainly conceivable to set up a certain geofencing there. That depends heavily, of course, on what kind of industry lies along that flight path that might be important for the drone industry. But if it's done with a flare or a mobile phone or something else, then these areas can, of course, continue to be operated.
Are there actually any considerations regarding the whole issue of how close a drone is allowed to get to a paraglider?
There are considerations regarding what the protection zones around such aircraft should look like. They're talking about several hundred meters. But they don't specify an exact, fixed amount. It's not like with commercial air traffic, where you have some kind of eight-kilometer protection zone or whatever around you. That just doesn't exist there. Or distance rules, like flying three times behind someone. That doesn't exist there either. It's generally a problem in the Golf and Echo airspace. I can fly my Cessna very close to another Cessna or a glider. It's not stated how close is close. And that's how it will be there too. But I assume we'll hopefully be moving in the range of a few hundred meters.
He also needs to have some room to maneuver with his drone. He has to fly a certain turning radius. So, I think it's in that range.
One final question regarding the timeline. How do you see that? Because you say that from 2023 onwards it becomes an issue, also because the regulations will come into force or the states will have the requirements. By then, the corresponding rules should actually be in place. If I were standing here right now before making a decision, like I want to maybe buy a new Vario or something. Should I maybe put that off for a year to then say, maybe I should go with a device with FLAM after all? Or, from your point of view, should I best just buy a device with FLAM right now?
To be honest, I'd only buy one with FLAM from now on.
Because as I said earlier, it doesn't just help us with the regulation, with the USPACE implementation, but it helps us generally with collision avoidance, which was also a major program from the EU, by the way. So they didn't just put these drone things on the table for us, but there were also studies and drafts regarding general electronic traceability from zero to outer space.
And there was also always the question of how you want to be detectable? And we always said, well, what we have is FLAM. And what we can do is a mobile phone. You could still use that up to a certain altitude. But generally, to answer the question, I would only buy a vario with FLAM anymore. I have one, it doesn't have to be colorful, it doesn't have to cost 1,000 euros. But it does, and I will see it. And that is the most important thing for me.
Okay, Helmut, thanks for these very interesting background details on the U-Space drone future, which will somehow affect us as paragliders. And that final tip there, guys, buy yourselves a vario with Flam. That way, you're at least a bit more future-proof than without it. Thanks for your explanation.
You're welcome too. Please.
That was episode number 72 of Podz-Glidz, featuring Helmut Bach in conversation with Lucian Haas. In the show notes for this episode on Looglites, you will find a series of further links regarding the topic of U-Space, including references to Switzerland. The Gleitschirm-Blog Looglites is online at looglites.blogspot.com. Looglites is also written as Lu-Glidz.
If you feel well-informed or well-entertained as a listener of Podz-Glidz and a reader of Looglites, then please give something back by supporting my work as a patron. Your one-time or recurring contribution is entirely up to you. In other words, you can give as much as you want. If you can't decide what amount would be appropriate, feel free to use the following completely non-binding suggestion. How about one euro per podcast episode and two euros per reading month on Looglites? Of course, you can listen to a few episodes first and read Looglites over several months and then make a lump-sum contribution. Payments are very easy via PayPal or bank transfer.
You can find all the necessary details on my blog Looglites, specifically on the Support page. Until next time. Ciao.