Aviation Anthology Vol 1 2026 - Digital Version - Flipbook - Page 13
Aviation autonomy and civil liability: the Law Commission for
England and Wales publishes its recommendations
Introduction
The Law Commission for England and Wales published
its Final Report on Aviation Autonomy on 20 May 2026
(the ‘Report’)[1] concluding a substantial review of the
legal framework governing highly automated and, in
time, fully autonomous aviation in England and Wales.
[2] The Report considers, inter alia, whether existing
civil liability frameworks are capable of accommodating
emerging technologies, including remotely piloted and
autonomous uncrewed aircraft systems (‘UAS’), drawing
on two Law Commission consultation papers issued
in February 2024 and April 2025 and the responses
received.
At a high level, the Report takes a deliberately cautious
approach. Rather than proposing a new, bespoke
liability regime, it favours the adaptation and extension
of existing aviation law principles. This reflects a clear
policy preference: preserving established routes to
compensation, maintaining continuity, and avoiding
unnecessary disruption as technology evolves. Of
the 38 formal Recommendations made, only two
engage directly with civil liability: Recommendation
29 (insurance) and Recommendation 30 (trespass and
nuisance).
The call for reform
The review was undertaken by the Law Commission[3]
at the request of the UK Civil Aviation Authority
(‘CAA’) supported by the Department for Transport, in
anticipation of significant growth in semi-autonomous
and future autonomous aviation operations. The exercise
was not prompted by any identified immediate legal
failure, but by the recognition that existing frameworks,
designed for crewed aircraft and onboard pilot decisionmaking, may come under increasing strain in response
to new and emerging technologies for aviation transport
(collectively referred to in the Report as “Advanced Air
Mobility”).
the coming decade. These include the expansion
of beyond visual line of sight (“BVLOS”) operations,
growing interest in multiple simultaneous operations
(“MSO”) (for example, one remote pilot or operations
supervisor overseeing a fleet of delivery drones), and,
in the medium term, the emergence of passengercarrying, remotely piloted aircraft. Looking further
ahead, the possibility of fully autonomous operations,
without any human pilot (on board or remote) capable
of intervention, raises more fundamental questions
about how responsibility is allocated. Taken together,
these anticipated developments represent more than
incremental change. They point towards a clear shift
in which operational decision-making is increasingly
distributed across operators, software systems,
manufacturers and supporting infrastructure. It is this
redistribution of responsibility, rather than any single
technological advance, that underpins the case for
review.
The Report itself is extensive, spanning 364 pages, with
its associated summary, running to 42-pages.[4] This
article focuses on the Commission’s treatment of civil
liability, as set out in Part 4, Chapter 12. Other areas
addressed in the Report, including criminal liability
(such as the modernisation of hijacking offences) and
a wide range of regulatory reforms, are beyond the
scope of this article, but form an important part of the
Commission’s broader review.
Effective redress and the clear allocation of
responsibility
A central theme of the Report is that increasing aviation
automation should not weaken access to compensation:
“…should an accident occur, affected parties should have
a route to obtaining redress…” and, it is important that
“if and when things do go wrong, there are appropriate
mechanisms in place to hold those responsible to
account”.
In particular, the Report identifies several developments
that are expected to reshape the aviation sector over
Aviation Anthology 2026 - Volume I
DAC Beachcroft
13
