Public Industry Discussion Paper

Connecting Ireland’s Low-Altitude Economy

A neutral framework for discussing the physical, regulatory, digital and commercial infrastructure required to support secure, interoperable, multi-operator low-altitude networks.

This paper is intended to invite practical review from aviation, infrastructure, engineering, planning, technology, insurance, legal, public-sector and industrial stakeholders. It is not a fundraising document, procurement proposal or claim of regulatory endorsement.
Proposed Infrastructure Stack
1Physical Infrastructure
2Aviation and Compliance
3Digital Infrastructure
4Commercial Operation
5Optional Future DePIN and Settlement
1. Purpose and Scope

A working framework for industry review

The paper examines whether Ireland will require a coordinated physical and digital ground layer to support repeatable, commercially useful UAS operations, and how that work could provide a practical entry point into the wider Low-Altitude Economy.

UAS first, with wider infrastructure relevance assessed over time

StrataNode is developing a UAS-first infrastructure framework as the practical entry point into Ireland’s Low-Altitude Economy. Near-term work focuses on industrial drone corridors. Selected sites, digital systems and governance standards developed through that work will be assessed for relevance to larger autonomous cargo and Advanced Air Mobility applications as those categories mature.

This does not imply that infrastructure designed for small UAS can automatically support larger cargo aircraft or passenger eVTOL operations. Any future extension would require separate assessment of aircraft performance, structural loading, energy demand, emergency response, passenger safety, accessibility, noise, certification and planning requirements.

What this paper proposes

A structured method for identifying corridors, testing feasibility, coordinating compliance, defining infrastructure requirements and assessing potential pilot routes.

What this paper does not claim

It does not claim ownership of airspace, regulatory approval, State appointment, procurement status, exclusive rights, committed routes, committed operators, committed partners or a predetermined technology solution.

What feedback is sought

Challenge on safety, regulation, planning, engineering, connectivity, commercial demand, data governance, public acceptance, delivery structure and practical sequencing.

2. Why Now

Policy is advancing while the ground layer remains immature

Policy transition

Ireland’s National Policy Framework for Unmanned Aircraft Systems was launched in August 2025 as a living framework intended to guide the sector’s development.

Regulatory capability

Ireland has established regulatory experience with complex UAS operations, including the IAA’s 2021 issuance of a BVLOS-capable Light UAS Operator Certificate.

International learning

European initiatives are testing combinations of automated ground stations, secure machine communications, trusted telemetry and future programmable infrastructure access.

Infrastructure question

Aircraft, software and airspace services are developing rapidly, but the physical sites, energy, connectivity, access, maintenance and commercial coordination needed for repeatable operations remain fragmented.

3. Lessons from Early Deployments

Technology alone may not be sufficient

Early commercial drone deployments suggest that the challenge of scaling operations extends beyond aircraft capability and increasingly involves planning, infrastructure, public acceptance and regulatory certainty.

Manna – Technology Proven

Ireland produced one of Europe’s leading drone delivery companies. Manna demonstrated operational capability through hundreds of thousands of deliveries, international expansion and substantial private investment.

  • Operational experience
  • Engineering capability
  • Commercial demand
  • Private investment support
  • International expansion

Dundrum Planning Refusal

The refusal of the proposed Dundrum aerial delivery hub highlighted issues extending beyond aircraft performance.

  • Noise and residential amenity
  • Biodiversity and ecological assessment
  • Land-use compatibility
  • Community acceptance
  • Planning complexity

Strategic Pause in Ireland

Manna’s decision to pause Irish delivery operations while maintaining engineering, research and corporate activity in Ireland highlights the difference between technology capability and infrastructure readiness.

  • Site suitability
  • Environmental assessment
  • Infrastructure deployment
  • Regulatory certainty
  • Public trust

Key Observation

The bottleneck appears to be shifting from aircraft capability towards infrastructure readiness.

The experience of early operators suggests that future growth in the Low-Altitude Economy may depend increasingly upon suitable corridors, suitable nodes, planning pathways, environmental assessment, community engagement, physical infrastructure, energy, connectivity and commercial coordination.

These requirements may create opportunities for infrastructure originators, engineering firms and construction partners alongside aircraft operators.

Relevance to StrataNode

This paper does not present Manna’s experience as a failure of drone technology. Instead, it treats it as evidence that successful low-altitude operations may require a dedicated infrastructure layer: corridor screening, site selection, planning strategy, environmental review, construction coordination and public-interest governance.

4. Policy and Regulatory Context

Alignment without implying endorsement

A private-sector corridor concept must operate within existing aviation, planning, safety, privacy, environmental and public-governance requirements.

Airspace and planning

Projects would need to consider geographical zones, local planning, land use, site access, public consultation and any future U-space arrangements.

Operational safety

Any flight operation would remain the responsibility of appropriately authorised operators and would require assessment under the relevant IAA and EASA framework, including SORA where applicable.

Data and public trust

Privacy, cybersecurity, data ownership, environmental impact, noise, transparency and public acceptance must be considered from the earliest feasibility stage.

Policy alignment does not confer procurement status, regulatory approval, funding eligibility, preferential treatment or State endorsement.

5. Capability Requirements

No single organisation can deliver the full system alone

A credible corridor would require coordinated specialist capability, with aviation operation, infrastructure development, regulatory approval and commercial participation kept distinct and responsibilities defined project by project.

Aviation and operations

Licensed UAS operations, operational authorisation, SORA, safety management, maintenance, emergency procedures and insurance.

Planning and infrastructure

Land access, planning, civil engineering, energy, charging, communications, security, maintenance and resilience.

Digital and data systems

Machine identity, connectivity, cybersecurity, telemetry, booking, access control, interoperability, data governance and audit.

Commercial and public interfaces

Industrial demand, customer requirements, public engagement, local authorities, legal agreements and project governance.

6. The 5 Cs Framework

A proposed stage-gate method

The 5 Cs describe how a corridor concept could progress. Each stage should contain clear evidence requirements and a stop/go decision.

1

Corridors

Is there a defined route, suitable origin and destination sites, and a clear operational use case?

2

Compliance

Is there a credible aviation, planning, safety, privacy and insurance pathway?

3

Construction

Can the required nodes, power, access, communications and security be permitted, built and maintained?

4

Commercialisation

Is there a real customer requirement, sufficient operational volume and a viable delivery model?

5

Connectivity

Can operators, nodes, systems, data and access controls interoperate securely and reliably?

The 5 Cs describe the development process; the five-layer architecture below describes what an operational corridor may contain.

7. What Differentiates the Proposed Model

Integration across the full enabling layer

The model is not centred on one aircraft, operator, station or software platform. It focuses on coordinating the system around the operation.

Technology-agnostic

Corridors can adopt appropriate technologies without being permanently dependent on one supplier or platform.

Physical and digital integration

Sites, energy, charging, access, communications, telemetry, booking and operational data are considered as one infrastructure system.

Multi-operator interoperability

The architecture asks how shared nodes could support different authorised operators under defined technical and commercial rules.

Rights and governance

Site access, development rights, data rights, responsibilities, liabilities and continuing coordination roles must be negotiated explicitly.

Phased technology adoption

Current technologies can support early pilots, while emerging capabilities are introduced only where they solve a demonstrated problem.

Review before scale

No expansion is proposed until demand, safety, planning, infrastructure, connectivity and governance have been validated.

8. Enabling Technology Landscape

Essential now, optional next, future only

The first pilot should use the minimum technology required to prove safe and useful operation.

Pilot-essential

Operational infrastructure

  • Safe landing and receiving areas
  • Power and charging where required
  • Secure communications and telemetry
  • Weather and asset monitoring
  • Access control and operational logging
  • Emergency and maintenance arrangements
Pilot-optional

Intelligent coordination

  • Automated docking or drone-in-a-box systems
  • Digital twins
  • Predictive maintenance
  • Automated booking and capacity allocation
  • Machine-readable access rules
  • Tamper-evident operational records
Future only

DePIN and programmable settlement

  • Approved node-host participation
  • Machine-to-machine access payments
  • Transparent revenue allocation
  • Verifiable non-personal data services
  • Cryptographic audit records
  • Tokenised incentives where lawful and justified

Conventional contracts, fiat payments and established governance should remain the default for early projects. No personal, sensitive, restricted or public-sector data should be commercialised without explicit contractual authority and appropriate data-protection review.

9. Five-Layer Connected Architecture

A proposed technical reference model

1

Physical Infrastructure

Sites, landing and receiving areas, power, charging, secure storage, communications hardware, sensors, access systems and maintenance points.

2

Aviation and Compliance

Operational authorisation, SORA, planning, land use, insurance, privacy, security, environmental assessment and public acceptance.

3

Digital Infrastructure

Machine identity, encrypted communications, telemetry, edge and cloud systems, remote monitoring, booking and operator integration.

4

Commercial Operation

Customer requirements, operator agreements, site agreements, service levels, maintenance responsibilities, fees and governance.

5

Optional Future Layer

DePIN participation, programmable access, verifiable records and automated settlement where they provide a measurable operational benefit.

10. Corridor Rights and Governance

Rights must be negotiated; they do not arise automatically

The proposed model does not claim ownership of low-altitude airspace. StrataNode’s proposed role is infrastructure origination, structuring, de-risking and coordination; aircraft operation, regulatory approval, asset ownership and commercial participation would remain with the appropriately authorised or contracted parties.

Site and access rights

Options, leases, licences or access agreements for origin, destination, charging, communications and maintenance locations.

Development and coordination rights

Any continuing development, first-refusal, licensing, management or participation role must be expressly agreed in contract.

Data rights

Ownership, access, processing, retention and permitted use of operational data must be agreed between operators, customers, site owners and system providers.

Accountability

Responsibility for aviation safety, construction safety, cybersecurity, planning, insurance, maintenance and public engagement must be allocated clearly.

Potential project vehicle

A dedicated project entity may eventually be appropriate to hold site agreements, infrastructure assets, operator contracts and liabilities, subject to feasibility and legal review.

Public-interest safeguards

Governance should include safety reporting, privacy controls, security, complaints handling, environmental monitoring and transparent stakeholder engagement.

11. Functional Delivery Structure

Responsibilities confirmed project by project

No route, operator, infrastructure owner, public body or commercial participant is presented as committed until a formal agreement is executed.

Coordination and origination functions

  • Route and use-case definition
  • Site and stakeholder mapping
  • Feasibility coordination
  • Infrastructure architecture
  • Interoperability requirements
  • Project governance and documentation

Specialist delivery functions

  • Licensed UAS operation
  • Aviation, SORA, planning and legal advice
  • Civil engineering and utility delivery
  • Station, charging and communications systems
  • Cybersecurity and data governance
  • Insurance, maintenance and public engagement
12. Pilot Discussion Framework

Start with one defined, evidence-led use case

The purpose of a first pilot would be to test whether a defined corridor can deliver measurable operational or public value under manageable safety, planning, infrastructure and governance conditions.

Defined origin and destination

Two controlled sites with clear ownership, access and infrastructure requirements.

Defined task

A specific payload, inspection, monitoring or logistics requirement with measurable frequency and service criteria.

Defined operator pathway

An authorised operator, suitable aircraft capability and route-specific regulatory assessment.

Defined evidence baseline

Existing time, cost, road mileage, labour, emissions, safety exposure, reliability and service performance recorded before testing.

Illustrative Route Archetypes

Examples for challenge, not selected routes

These anonymised archetypes illustrate how different use cases might be considered. They do not indicate that any route, sector, customer, operator or partner has been selected or committed.

Archetype Typical endpoints Indicative frequency Operational complexity Public exposure Evidence opportunity
Medical or laboratory sample Hospital, clinic or collection point ↔ laboratory Daily or scheduled Medium Low to medium Time sensitivity, service reliability, road mileage and public value
Utility or infrastructure inspection Controlled asset sites or repeat linear infrastructure Weekly, monthly or event-driven Low to medium Low Inspection time, safety exposure, labour input and repeatability
Industrial parts or samples Industrial estate, port, logistics hub or controlled worksite Scheduled or variable Medium Low to medium Downtime avoided, delivery time, cost and emissions
Environmental monitoring Controlled base ↔ monitoring, sampling or inspection location Repeat or seasonal Low to medium Low Coverage, data quality, response time and reduced field exposure
Tier 1 Minimum Viability Screen

Eliminate fatal constraints before ranking candidates

This initial working screen is proposed for industry review. A candidate route should proceed to detailed assessment only when all minimum conditions can be evidenced.

1

Recurring demonstrable demand

A repeat operational requirement exists and can be distinguished from occasional or ad hoc drone activity.

2

Controlled and accessible endpoints

Origin and destination sites have identifiable ownership, access and practical infrastructure pathways.

3

Credible operator pathway

An appropriately authorised operator and aircraft pathway can be identified under the applicable regulatory framework.

4

Measurable baseline data

The existing service can be measured, or a reliable baseline can be established before pilot operations begin.

5

No single fatal constraint

No known planning, airspace, safety, environmental, community or commercial issue makes the route presently non-viable.

Tier 2 assessment

Routes that pass the minimum viability screen may then be compared through a separate weighted assessment covering operational readiness, evidence quality, delivery risk and replication potential. Detailed scoring mechanics are intentionally reserved for the Candidate Corridor Assessment document and remain subject to stakeholder review.

13. Indicative Development Pathway

Progress only when evidence supports the next stage

1

Identify

Define use case, customer problem, candidate sites and route logic.

2

Screen

Apply the Tier 1 minimum viability screen and eliminate routes with unresolved fatal constraints before detailed comparison.

3

Scope

Prepare route, site, infrastructure, connectivity, operator and governance requirements.

4

Demonstrate

Conduct controlled testing only after required approvals, agreements and safety arrangements.

5

Evaluate

Measure performance against pre-agreed safety, service, cost, environmental, public-value and replication criteria using an established baseline.

6

Decide

Proceed, redesign, pause or stop based on evidence rather than assumed market momentum.

14. Risks, Assumptions and Open Questions

Issues the industry should challenge

Demand

Which industrial, public-service or infrastructure use cases genuinely require a recurring corridor rather than ad hoc drone operations?

Safety and regulation

Which route types are realistically assessable under current frameworks, and which assumptions are too optimistic?

Planning and public acceptance

What planning, noise, privacy, visual-impact and consultation requirements should apply to permanent ground nodes?

Infrastructure economics

What level of utilisation is required to justify sites, charging, communications, maintenance and security?

Insurance and liability

How should liability be allocated between operator, site owner, infrastructure coordinator, technology provider and customer?

Baseline evidence

Which candidate routes have sufficiently reliable existing data to demonstrate whether a pilot improved time, cost, safety, emissions, reliability or public value?

Connectivity and cybersecurity

What resilience, redundancy, identity, monitoring and incident-response standards should apply?

Interoperability

Can shared nodes support multiple authorised operators without creating unacceptable safety or integration risks?

Data governance

Who owns telemetry, maintenance, route-performance and customer data, and what uses should be permitted?

Technology obsolescence

How can infrastructure remain modular as aircraft, charging, communications and U-space systems evolve?

Governance

What independent oversight, reporting, complaints and public-interest safeguards would be appropriate?

Replication

Which elements of a successful corridor could transfer to a second route, and which would remain specific to the original use case, geography or operator?

15. Proposed Feasibility Exercise

One structured corridor assessment

The next practical step would be a defined feasibility exercise, not a commitment to construction or flight operations.

Indicative outputs

  • Use-case and customer-need definition
  • Baseline-data plan covering time, cost, road mileage, labour, emissions, safety exposure and service reliability
  • Tier 1 minimum viability screen and fatal-constraint register
  • Outline Tier 2 assessment approach, including replication potential
  • Origin, destination and route-screening map
  • Initial aviation and ground-risk issues
  • Site, planning and infrastructure requirements
  • Operator and aircraft requirements
  • Connectivity and cybersecurity blueprint
  • Data-governance and responsibility matrix
  • Indicative cost, programme and pilot criteria
  • Go, redesign, pause or stop recommendation

Institutional guardrail

This paper does not state or imply that StrataNode is a State-appointed delivery vehicle, an authorised UAS operator or the holder of regulatory approval.

Any future feasibility exercise should define ownership and permitted use of route intelligence, maps, designs, commercial analysis, technical architecture and operational data before work begins.

Planning and Consenting

An Coimisiún Pleanála

Ireland’s national independent planning body responsible for planning appeals and direct applications for strategic infrastructure and other developments. For StrataNode, An Coimisiún Pleanála is relevant because future low-altitude infrastructure may require a scalable consenting pathway where drone corridors, industrial logistics nodes, vertiport-style facilities or emergency-service routes move beyond ordinary site-level permissions and become strategic infrastructure proposals.

StrataNode does not assume that all UAS infrastructure will qualify as Strategic Infrastructure Development. Instead, its role is to screen each corridor early, identify the appropriate planning route, prepare spatial and technical evidence, support pre-application engagement, and structure projects so that they are capable of progressing through the correct statutory process.

16. Reference Context

Documents informing the discussion

Government of Ireland: National Policy Framework for Unmanned Aircraft Systems, August 2025.

Irish Aviation Authority: 2021 announcement concerning a BVLOS-capable Light UAS Operator Certificate.

Dublin City Council: Drone and Urban Air Mobility Strategy 2024–2029.

European industry precedent: Publicly reported initiatives combining automated ground stations with secure machine-to-machine communications.

Manna Air Delivery: Public statements and company updates concerning the pause of Irish delivery operations and continued Irish engineering, research and corporate activity.

Irish media context: Public reporting on the Dundrum planning refusal, planning concerns, community objections and Manna’s strategic pause in Ireland.

These references provide context only. Their inclusion does not imply endorsement of StrataNode or validation of any proposed corridor.

Invitation to Industry

Review it. Challenge it. Improve it.

The purpose of this paper is to expose assumptions early, identify practical barriers and improve the framework before any corridor is treated as technically, commercially or institutionally viable.