AIR4ALL Workshop 1, February 20-21 2008 Location: EDA, Brussels Sub-group Sessions: Report from Parallel Sessions

1. AIR4ALL Workshop 1, February 20-21 2008 Location: EDA, Brussels Sub-group Sessions: Report from Parallel Sessions

2. Background • The following slides provide representation of the parallel session inputs and discussion held at the Air4All 1st Stakeholder Workshop on February 20/21. • It should be noted that: • These are raw notes without filtering • They represent a variety of different views of the various participants • They do not represent an agreed or consensus view • They are the summary of the parallel discussion sessions only – discussions from the open sessions are not recorded here. • Feedback from different sessions are in different colours.

3. Agenda for Parallel Session Discussions • Understanding of UAS mission requirements • Views relative to UAS insertion in non-segregated airspace • Airworthiness and certification • Operations • General Requirements • Conditions for the development of a viable UAS market • Technical Barriers and Challenges • Non Technical Barriers and Challenges

4. UAS mission requirements (1) • Main UAS mission requirements • Note: These mission requirements are discussed from the specific point of view of the integration in non-segregated airspace) • FR, IT & UK MoD: envisioned military missions • Short-term: ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance), Target acquisition, EW • Future: most of the combat missions • Long-term: all the missions presently achieved by manned aircraft • Independent of type of mission we need to transfer in controlled airspace • Remark for the workshop : the benefit for the defence community should be clearly pointed out to justify future investments

5. UAS mission requirements (2) • Main UAS mission requirements • Military, governmental and civil • Military: missions for small UAS, tactical, MALE, HALE, UCAVs • Governmental: border, maritime surveillance, natural disaster monitoring,… • Civil: missions for small UAS, short range ops, long haul missions • Military: mixed missions for small UAS, tactical, MALE, HALE (UCAVs later) • Governmental: close to the military mission, but requires more to use altitude from 200m to 3000m (border control/ maritime etc.) • FRONTEX specify all weather capability ! • Civil: small UAS (80%) with MTOW < 150kg, low altitude (20 – 300m), long endurance, systematical flight pattern • Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance prio 1, but the list is still openlike for Future air refuelling or medical ops. • Small UAS ops are mostly being operated below the minimum safety altitude • Global hawk-class has been seen as an extreme for procedural discussions due to its operational envelope. Smaller systems should be covered. • Military operations should not be restricted to reserved Airspace • Border control, open sea pollution and smuggling observation, movement control, tracking of objectstracking of ships, station keeping Question, why need to integrate? If mil AC may be operated in controlled AC, this is to the benefit for other applications • Industrial validation flights, training missions requested from customers to the industrial suppliers • Border & maritime surveillance • Natural disasters & Fire monitoring missions

6. UAS mission requirements (2) • What is the main interest of using UAS ? • Both large and small UAVs • Rapid deployment • Difficult to detect • Civil for long distance from 20 mt AGL up to stratospheric • Military above 300 mt • Autonomy where useful, man in the loop where necessary may be used for the benefit of the user • Cost efficiency is desired, but possible? Cost are depending on the number being produced • 4D (dull, dirty, dangerous and deep), flight duration, automatic exploitation procedures may enhance the interest • Micro UAVs have been questioned, but are out the range of traffic insertion problems • Operational advantages for ‘present’ missions: the goal is to extend manned AC capabilities • increased endurance, permanence, lower cost (compared to manned AC), • Adapted for dirty & dangerous missions • Specifically for UCAVs: potential for a more stealthy design, increased survivability due to high-g capacity (no pilot limitation) • New missions • Dirty & dangerous missions • ‘over the hill’ surveillance with small UAS (Most small UAS missions could take place below 500 ft AGL) • Combined operations with manned Military Aircraft : requires integration with other Military Aircraft and Helicopters: not considered by MoD representatives as one of the goal of the study which must concentrate on insertion with civil / commercial AC • Danger zones (conflict, volcanos, ..), both in controlled or non-controlled airspace • Long Endurance, but not in every case

7. UAS mission requirements (3) • Tentatively classify UAS missions according to mission interest and expected timeframe ? • Synthesis: classification of the realistic ‘short to medium-term’ missions • Surveillance missions mainly with MALE (and limited HALE) UAS • Military: transit flight in non-segregated airspace from a military AB to a theatre of operations • ‘Governmental’ surveillance missions (Border, maritime,…): requires access to non-segregated airspace • Small UAS ops below 500 ft AGL • MoD’s request for: • A short reaction time: access to non-segregated airspace must be at short notice (or the mission will be lost!) • Capability to change flight parameters during the flight (for tactical reasons) • These mission capabilities are considered as valuable additional UAS operational capabilities compared to segregated only UAS flight capability • Low level flight is useful • Below 500 ft is not GAT ! (but still needed) • Potentially most useful altitude level is between 5 to 200 • 150 Kg separation is Kinetic energy related • All missions, all flight levels, both controlled and uncontrolled airspace • IFR rules is easier, but there is a need for VFR • Need for both IFR and VFR, but potential phased approach possible • Special point : • today there can’t be an IFR pilot without being VFR • Will the IFR / VFR distinction remain for manned aviation ?

8. Airworthiness and certification (1) • When should UAS airworthiness rules be put in place ? • Minor problem on national level for military UAVs. For example Belgium use a safety target approach. Several countries would like to have civil requirement in place as soon as possibility to be able to fly regularly. There is need for a route to international harmonization as soon as possible. • should link to manned aviation rules as much as possible – deal with the differences - need rules before allowing flying in un-segregated airspace – don’t play catch up- • EASA A-NPA 16/2005- but it identifies lots of issues which must be dealt with as special conditions eg S&A . It would be preferable to have the rules clearly agreed early • special condition/ options allow a number of early systems to be deployed - it is difficult to fix the rules now for all the different classes of UAVS • USA use of local notam – warning of UAV activity near a range - to advise normal aviation • this is not feasible for Europe. • but in quiet areas it could be • airworthiness is important if use over populated areas - for the military we have a specific Airworthiness requirements - this could be updated to the STANAG USAR • this STANAG 4671 is intended to allow operation outside segregated airspace and across national boundaries -is based on CS23 • Why was this work military OAT – that was the requirement - extending it to civil UAVs would be difficult • Rules –when? - Before starting operation and ( for military) jointly with the civil authorities .Concern about flying over populated areas. Also need political will – support essential – and for non segregated areas must have civil authority support. • growing problem even for war time ops increases with larger UAVs • ASAP • 2015 seems optimistic : SESAR is 2020, FAA 2016 (but not credible)

9. Airworthiness and certification (2) • Do UAS have to adopt the same rules and objectives as manned aviation ? • No we need a consistent set of rules across Europe, we need a “JAR 21“ but for UAVs. The same objectives but with minor changes in the requirements. • safety aspects are very important - and must try to conform. Must at least be a safe as manned aviation. But it is not clear what this implies . • At least as safe as the equivalent manned operation – eg small = GA, larger = business, large = Commercial ??? • but the definition (10-9 etc) related to passengers on board need a new approach to safety case • every UAV has an equivalent class of civil aviation- should apply those rules eg use rules for ultra light machines but for some of these –avionic complexity is also a factor. • Mission requirements or Kinetic energy (recommended) • EASA position mature? • For the UAV, it should be as for manned AC,as long we can certify the command and control links, and the man in the loop. CS should be handled in a different manner? • As long as UAS aren‘t known to the others, it is difficult to do it in a different manner. • Compromises by reducing the level of safety must not be foreseen due to the principle of equivalence • A System approach, integrating the link and the CS has been done in Italy, also population density • “To be quick” : as a global target, yes • But specific features for UAS = rules to be tailored • Objective is to have a global “Equivalent level of safety” • Priority N°1 : equivalent level of safety for other airspace users • Mid Air Collision Avoidance • Safety objectives to set harmonized • 2nd Priority : equivalent level of safety for over flown populations • Avoid uncontrolled landing / ground avoidance • Is this well defined for manned aviation ?

10. Airworthiness and certification (3) • Level of harmonization with civil standards • We need a UAV classification system dependent e.g. size, weight, speed • Sense /see and avoid – this is a requirement for manned aircraft but for UAV requires a box - and this box will have airworthiness requirements . • EUROCONTROL view –it would be much better if the road map focused on the technical requirements - ie the achievement of separation provision and collision avoidance. • but we could adapt the ATM rules to support UAVs • as UAVs are new they must conform with the existing system – but there may be some restricted situation where some accommodation is possible • but systems could make things safer eg replace human eyes. • but could we not ensure that SESAR is developed to march the capabilities of UAVS – UAVS are naturally more SESAR compliant than manned aviation • Soon there will be a civil definition of UAV with civil rules - currently Military UAVS have there own rules and this is expected to continue although from a safety perspective it is likely that the same basic requirements will be imposed/ agreed for both civil and military but the certification approach will /may be different . • The level of harmonisation will be limited - Military standard will apply to military UAVs the same as military aircraft – but may use civil standards where appropriate for interoperability requirements • but in Non segregated airspace don’t military aircraft have to conform to civil rules eg RVSM - but can be accommodated if necessary • remember that civil standards do not apply to military aircraft • CIVIL APPLICATION • national authorities in charge below 150 kg • different cathegorization in nations by weight 1,5 kg/7 kg/ 20 kg/ 150Kg (MTOW or else?) • new version CAP 722 for small UAS (UK CAA) • link with SESAR and WG-73 • How to deal state aircraft for non military applications? Italy is evaluating the use of the Predator for non military missions. But equivalent level of safety had to be shown. Flying in corridors. • Why should a regulator ask for a higher level of safety as for a manned system by using CS 25 for a UAV? -> As a manned A/C may perform a forced landing on a field, a UAV has been treated the same way • Must take into account future evolution of manned aviation

11. Airworthiness and certification (4) • Any other comment ? • Traffic insertion is key for the military operators to be able to operate in different areas including training activities. • Different attitude e.g. airworthiness requirements to UAVs which are able to fly only in direct sight of the operator. • Military categorization: by order of magnitude • STANAG 4671 ratified by various nations (however with reservations, e.g. on safety objectives) • What about a UAV landing on foreign territory on a border control mission? Info exchange • Depends on how the countries agree on a common consensus for the ops. Security issues have to be considered • If a target level of safety could not achieved, restrictions may help. • Secure information flow • IT CAA considers that a CAA must learn about how a UAS is designed and operated in order to be pertinent for certification; consequently a stepwise approach seems relevant • IT MoD agrees with a step by step approach. Also underlines that there are too many initiatives in this field (OCCAR, NATO,…), promotes EDA as the focal point for coordination • FR MoD supports Stanag 4681 (derived from CS23) • Eurocontrol’s opinion: • the 150kg MTOW threshold is not necessarily pertinent and suggests that EASA shoul also be involved for UAS < 150 kg • ‘Permit to fly’ and ‘restricted airworthiness’ approvals could be 2 intermediate steps before ‘full type certificate’ • EASA, as the European safety body, should define safety targets • European certification harmonization is a key enabler (through CAAs participation in EASA working groups) • Synthesis • Consensus on a step by step certification approach as • Knowledge is necessary for a pertinent certification and safety demonstration • More operational capabilities with time (according to progressively less restrictions) • Security (# safety) aspects (hi-jacking of CS ...)

12. Operations (1) • UAS OPS (main topics, not limitative) • Safety level • For people and property on ground • Important to add warning and emergency systems • people on the ground are killed by aviation and the risk from UAVs should not be greater - • but the safety numbers are not related to probability of killing people on the ground because the aircraft is made safe for the passengers and this protects the school. • also assumption that the pilot of an aircraft about to hit the ground will be able to avoid the school by last minute action while UAV will not. Therefore the risk is higher with the UAV – we should be able to demonstrate that a UAV is as safe as a manned aircraft in the last minute before a crash - this is very, very difficult but is an important issue for flying over populated areas - • But in the UK pilot are instructed to eject while safe ie before they know where the aircraft will hit • could construct a safety case based on the population density on the ground. • civil. recommendation from WG 73 (July 2008) • milit: STANAG 4671, safety objectives need to be agreed, work session May 2oo8 • People in the CS should have better access to information as a normal pilot • For people and property on ground equal (as for manned a/c) • For other airspace users equal (as for manned a/c) • Consensus for having UAS safety at least as good as for manned aircraft certification and operations • Eurocontrol states that ESARR 4 is relevant for the UAS insertion safety process • Eurocontrol: A safety case must be defined for the expected UAS ops

13. Operations (2) • UAS OPS (main topics, not limitative) • Safety level • For other airspace users • Lighting systems, Transponders, etc are important • We can not add any requirements for equipment for other users • Air to air collision - current large civil aircraft use a cooperative system – based on Transponder but requires a mandate for all aircraft • for a non cooperatives should have the same probability of collision avoidance as a manned aircraft – but very difficult - focus on the higher level requirements. There are some statistics on mid air collision but does this help near misses are often not reported • EUROCONTROL – UAVs should not increase the risk of collision to other users - ATM provides separation ( in certain classes of airspace ) but not collision avoidance • TCAS is not allowed to be fitted on UAVs according to ICAO current rules – and gives no credit towards the safety case- TCAS assumes a man in the cockpit who will make decision based on the information provided. • the pilot in command of a UAV must be as effective as the pilot in a manned aircraft • But the man on the ground will be restricted in the information and situation awareness which will restrict his performance • collision avoidance for UAVs needs to be autonomous - it assumes that separation has been lost – the pilot cannot react fast enough normally – ( he should have a veto ) • civil: mainly EUROCONTROL initaitives / linked to WG 73 (not national) • milit.: NATO FINAS group, under preparation (date open)

14. Operations (3) • UAS OPS (main topics, not limitative) • Flight profile requirements: OAT vs GAT, flight rules, controlled flight or not, all weather ops? • Depending of type of UAV • Dangerous weather avoiding system • concern about the questionnaire - issue of OAT and GAT is confused. Requirements for State UAV to fly GAT is minimal as is the requirement for State a/c to fly GAT. They fly OAT • civil: main low level (0m to 2000m), long range/ endurance, day and night operation, ‘all weather’ not a necessary req., flying in VFR in non controlled airspace. • milit.: mission / paylod defines the altitude (0m to 20000m), long endurance, predominant surveillance and reconaissance mission, strike compability (future). • state: surveillance mission for HLS 80% in non controlled airspace in VFR. • Class G airspace allows only VFR ops. • Maritime observations, they will take place in Class G .For this reason, a suitable S/A equipment is as essential as ops. in Class G. • All Weather Operations ? Yes, completely essential. • Note : the wording of questions not clear / should be rephrased • Eurocontrol: OAT rules are not yet harmonized in Europe (and there is no expected timeframe for harmonization) • GAT is more and more relevant (but managed at ICAO level) • But imposes the need to fulfil CNS requirements, even if deviations for state UAS are possible (as they are for state aircraft ). GNSS as a primary navigation means not expected before 2020 (Eurocontrol) • European harmonization of ATM regulations would help for cross-border operations (Eurocontrol) • Harmonization of lower airspace structure (as recently done with class C for upper airspace >FL 195) • Harmonization of the rules in force with each airspace class (national specificities exist)

15. Operations (4) • UAS OPS (main topics, not limitative) • What aerodromes for UAS ops? • Example of problem areas are taxiing and alternative airports • UAVs operation at airport is a bigger challenge that in the air they will not be able to taxi unescorted /extended runway occupancy time - this will limit there use at normal (busy!) civil airfields. • is this a serious restriction on the use of UAVs ? Probably not – no worse that military operations at normal airfields • for civil UAV may be more of an issue – but it can be managed • (Therefore the focus should be ability to enter and leave non segregated air space but not to enter a airspace ) • Currently UAV operation in the area around busy airports cannot be supported – does not need to be supported • civil: local aerodromes (the big ones only for special use e.g. freight AC, future), operation mixed with manned AC, simple airfields operation possible (no aerodromes), • milit.: normal operation from dedicated milit. aerodromes (possilbbly open to civil manned air traffic), ESDP operation: ‘out of area’, operation from all kind of possible locations. • For some surveillance mission, interest for T/O from ship, lands on land • No airfield specific for UAV. want to use transparently your UAV on any airfield in the middle of the manned aircrafts operations. • Airspace and density is an issue. • To know other traffic is a challenge • Planning of alternates is giving the choice to land in case of trouble. Also hand over has to be taken into account, as well as certain ground equipment to assure a safe landing • Could an intermediate approach could be a solution? IFR is easy, but at CAVOK others are around. As OPS should not be restricted, S/A and Class G is the goal • ATOL is high priority • Current use : military airports, special separation minima for mixed ops, also special time slots, camera guided taxi • . Class of UAV will have to be taken into acount. Also special clearences, special XPDR codes. Goal is to reduce separation

16. Operations (5) • UAS OPS (main topics, not limitative) • What aerodromes for UAS ops? (continued) • Non-segregated (and non restricted) AD ops on ‘large’ ADs cover a wide range of issues and are considered as very challenging • It is told that some UAS ops (police ops for example) could be supported from ‘grass runways’ not located on existing ADs • New approach procedures could be envisioned • Requirements for aerodrome operations : equivalent to manned aviation • Landing and Taking-Off on airports : • “working to achieve mixed manned / UAS aerodromes is better than keeping separate systems” • Some issues for Tactical (e.g. parachutes ...) or big UA • Automatic Take-Off and Landing + Auto-Taxi is a requirement • Includes collision avoidance when on ground

17. Operations (6) • UAS OPS (main topics, not limitative) • UAS crew qualification and training • USA proposing -DUO designated UAV operator • EUROCONTROL use Pilot in command but this may be reviewed • A common agreed name for the operator/pilot would be very useful • But some people see ‘operator’ as addressing someone above the ‘pilot’ potentially responsible for several UAV • in Netherlands have different levels of skill required depending on the scenario – NATO has proposed a similar approach – • The training should be linked to the capability of the UAV and the environment in which it is operating – for use as GAT – pilot must understand the airspace and ATC procedures. • Finland has a similar approach • General concern that most UAVs are operated by Army personnel with little awareness of airborne issues. • Test pilot experience indicates that ‘ normal’ pilots are not necessarily the best operators of UAVs – there are different requirements and skills – this (and the long term cost – suggest that a special ‘ UAV operator licence may be appropriate which includes ATC competence when required . Eg a basic licence with endorsements • Medical requirements need to be defined but likely to be different than a pilot Finland has developed its own medical tests for UAV pilots. Medical tests are used for pilot selection – this probably should become the norm ie you don’t drive a UAV just because your unit gets a UAV to operate . The medical is repeated at regular intervals. The training also used to select operators – many do fail to qualify . • Flight crew licensing is currently national (using JAR FCL) but is about to come under EASA – but EASA has not yet got a position on UAV pilot licensing • There will be a need to harmonise UAV pilot licensing • civil: below 20 kg – in VLOS – only a UAS technical instruction if flight has no need for ATM (class E, F, G) -> PPL plus UAS specific; if flight requires ATM (class A –D) -> Commercial PL plus UAS specific a spefific license for UAV shall be used ! • military: STANAG 4670 – DUO operator qualification / Training Requirements below 20 kg in VLOS – no Pilot License; Above 20 kg: license as a military pilot required (required by Law if air vehicle has a tail number)

18. Operations (7) • UAS OPS (main topics, not limitative) • Today, military pilots are in charge. ATOL could allow to have operator with less qualification. Objective is to reduce the number of persons operating the UAV from the GCS, necessary for safe ops. Goal is a specific training (not necessarily a conventional pilot) but airmanship is a need • Need for an European set of regulations • Need for Crew change at long endurance missions • Skills are depending on the type and complexity of the system, RTO licenses • Different points of view are expressed • For IT CAA: a UAS pilot must be a pilot • For UK MoD: present requirements in the UK army • Pilots for take-off & landing phases • Not necessarily for cruise flight • Eurocontrol: the UAS pilot skills should be linked with their responsibility (as it could be in the traffic separation process for example) • Consensus: this issue should be defined according to the different responsibilities of the UAS pilot as contributing to UAS safe operations • Requirement for “rating” appropriate to ATM environment • May depend on degree of automation of UAS • A common basic level of training for UAS seems inevitable : • Talk with ATC • Procedural aspects • MTO

19. Operations (8) • How can a “real flight demonstration” be useful to UAS Operations rulemaking and when ? • What kind of UAV- for insertion into controlled airspace - must have characteristics similar to the manned aircraft in the same region • Use of a UAV (with a pilot on board) for trials • This has been for sense and avoid • Use of chase planes is effective ( Finland and others) • Focus on near term technologies eg Modes S mandated this year across Europe for all A/c down to 2 ton TOW - but not VLA or gliders yet. • In Germany a trail is planned with a UAV and a manned aircraft using mode S for ATC separation – a Netherlands trail used a TCAS to receive mode S info (without the Alerting system) to initially locate the threat and use the information to ‘point’ an electro optical system. • Key question – when and why do we need to move from simulations to live trials • No difference for civil / Military form an ATM perspective • 3 issues • ATC – and separation - live trials – with a series of simple well defined steps • collision avoidance -mostly simulation especially if cooperative , some live trails but in segregated airspace • Airworthiness -design and analysis • Issue of difference between state UAV requirements for security etc v UAV operation for commercial gain - the rules many be different • Demonstrations - To calibrate the simulations, to integrated with other airspace uses , the datalink quality ,emergency procedures , that spectrum is not a problem , security of the UAS data link ( but using a maned aircraft ) political acceptance

20. Operations (9) • How can a “real flight demonstration” be useful to UAS Operations rulemaking and when ? (continued) • First : Simulation necessary (large extent) for dense European Airspace (testing the ATM rules and regulation • Second: Verify simulation result by real flight testing (cross border) • Simulation in ATM for regulation understanding and latency and after a real flight for equipment • stealth for military UAS a problem – means to overcome it ! • Participants haven't see a need for demo as presented by the air4all consortium. There is a need to have certification and regulation, and to apply them it has be seen as useful. • A UAS insertion demo will have to be based on a mix of both simulations and flight demos, and so must be defined as a complement to simulations (IT CAA) • Already on going in some countries : flight experience builds confidence • Demonstration is a need: e.g. satellite data link relay from ESA • Real demonstration will be needed to convince politicians as well as Public • Technology demonstrators should sustain the elaboration of standards • Process : EUROCONTROL sets rules => EUROCAE fix objectives => design => demonstrate technology => define standards

21. Operations (10) • Should it be a European joint action ? • Some thought No – too difficult and will add delay! and if the EU has money it should support the ‘best ‘national project but results open to all in Europe. Others thought yes. • But this will not easily lead to European regulations • Coordination of ongoing actions would be useful • Must be a European joint action. Who has the responsibility? -> an European Agency ! • All participants agreed on YES • Yes, but compromising with budgets vs strategic willingness to be ITAR free • Optimizing the development effort is a challenge

22. Operations (11) • Can you define the outline of a demonstration scenario ? • A safety case for each step shall be defined and proven ! • Demonstrate ATM integration requirements (Eurocontrol): • navigation performances: to hold a navigation profile • validation of mid-air collision avoidance (including separation) performance, including for small UAS: Compatibility with TCAS2 is a key issue • Demonstrate reliability of the Command & Control link (IT CAA) and emergency procedures • Validation of procedures • What level of demonstration can we afford according to possible budgets ? • Simulation and Flight tests are both useful and complementary

23. General Requirements (1) General Requirements for UAS insertion into non-segregated airspace : • Typical flight scenarios resulting from military missions • Military: transit flight in non-segregated airspace from a military AB to a theatre of operations • ‘Governmental’ surveillance missions (Border, maritime,…): requires access to non-segregated airspace (even if temporary segregated could be a first approach) • Operational aspects • The FUA (Flexible Use of Airspace) promoted by Eurocontrol allows to manage the progressive transition from ‘temporary segregated’ UAS flights to ‘restricted non-segregated’ UAS flights • Eurocontrol indicates that from an ATM perspective, an airspace can be segregated between 2 Flight Levels (and remain non-segregated outside) • Full UAS flight capability ( full type certificate + VFR in class G) is expected for the long term but considered as not realistic for the short to medium term. Mitigations for the first step of a stepwise approach have been discussed. They could be restrictions associated with a ‘permit to fly’: • Operations in controlled airspace only (A to C for example) • IFR only, daytime/ night time • Segregated aerodrome operations

24. General Requirements (2) General Requirements for UAS insertion into non-segregated airspace : • Identify and prioritize 3 main requirements • Type certification (pre-requisite) • Command and Control / Datalink Frequencies • No civil frequencies / WRC 2011 for allocation of civil frequencies • Military frequencies are available, however require harmonisation for cross border operation • Sense & Avoid • Training requirement • Sense & Avoid • Spectrum • Secure Command & Control • Need to have a look at SESAR, where civil – thus cost - is the driver • Interoperability is a challenge • Differentiation in military organizations

25. Conditions for a viable UAS business model (1) • The necessary steps for the development of a certified UAS (critical path) • Definition of standards / validation / endorsement as applicable regulations • UAS concept design including operating costs • UAS Design and development • UAS Certification (actual flight data required) • Consensus on: • To design and develop a UAS without knowing at the project start about the certification basis induces a too heavy industrial risk that could prevent any further development for this type of systems • A individual UAS certification cannot be efficiently managed through a unique set of ‘special conditions’ to be discussed after the UAS design is completed • A ‘generic certification’ approach is needed to limit the number of special conditions to the minimum required

26. Conditions for a viable UAS business model (2) Questions • What issues do you see with a stepwise UAS insertion approach? • Lack of a harmonized regulations for both military and civil UAVs

27. Conditions for a viable UAS business model (3) Questions • What issues do you see with an international basis for certification & operational approval requirements ? • What frame for standard elaboration ? • What frame for standard elaboration ? • Civil Standards are a driver • EUROCAE is making standards for civil aviation • However, FINAS has already issued many stds : 4670 – 4671 – Human Factors .... • How to organize for a consensual civil / military standard definition ?

28. Technical Barriers & Challenges (1) Prioritize the following identified barriers and challenges: • General Comments: • The problem is more a lack of requirement, certification requirement and regulatory authority for each subject than a technical problem. • All are barriers. Prioritisation seems not a good approach as all challenges need to be equally addressed if we want to achieve the goal of total integration • 3 major issues are agreed and put at the first level of priority (1). They include technological, legal and regulatory aspects • Other technologies not in the original list • General security 5 • Eurocontrol recommends to coordinate with other ongoing roadmaps • UK MoD recommends (at the end of the first session) to find where the gaps are, whatever technical, regulatory or legal aspects are concerned

29. Technical Barriers & Challenges (2) Prioritize the following identified barriers and challenges: • All Weather detection3 6a • Capabilities to identify environmental hazard and capabilities to identify IMC /VMC conditions Wasn’t seen as a real technical barrier • ote : the All Weather Detection wording has been changed as not appropriate. Remark apply to the questionnaire in general : questions are often not clear/accurate • Automatic Take-Off and Landing7 4 • Autonomous behaviour2 5 3 • as a minimum for Collision avoidance, autonomous decision making should be avoided –to the extent possible - , failure of the C&C system should lead to automatic recovery, system state /health monitoring • Need a clear separation of Autonomous (non predictable ) and automatic (predictable ) • excluding what is linked with sense & avoid • Command & Control1 2 2 1 • Reliability of a UAS specific system • Emergency Recovery5 4 • Ground Avoidance6b • Sense & Avoid1 1 1 1 • (but needs to clearly distinguish between Separation and collision avoidance ) • including all necessary items for this function • Spectrum & Communications4 3 3 1 • Must become a global solution • Freq. allocation & management + security • Training8

30. Technical Barriers & Challenges (3) For the most important items : • Should it be addressed in as a European joint action ? • Yes • Not an option • Economic reason • To what degree is it linked to safety aspects ? • 100% • In which forums could Industry / Regulators / Users debate take place ? • EC/ Eurocontrol • EASA • EUROCAE • NATO FINAS • EDA UAS Initiative • ICAO • How can a demonstration on board a real UAS be useful ? • Show compliance with new requirements but also helps to develop the • Requirement/ rules. • Concept of operation – shall the UAV always operate as an aircraft eg adaptation of ATM to UAV loss of communication, emergency crash landing and dangerous flight – issue of ATC control in the even of comms failure – not acceptable –ATC requires that the UAV behaviour is predicable

31. Technical Barriers & Challenges (4) Comments on Spectrum : • Spectrum availability : Key issue – Eurocae, RTCA, • L Band overpopulated • New Band : 5 GHz for C2 ? • Needs work now to match World Radio Conference timescale • But only individual nations can vote, NATO, EDA and EC can only influence and agree in background • Challenge both for LOS and BLOS • International coordination is a challenge: NATO has already tried to get some frequency agreements but found no commonly available frequency • Necessary coordination between states, EDA, NATO • Challenges are Security/Safety and delay (anti-jamming, anti-spoofing) for C2, large Bandwidth for Payloads • Trade-off between autonomy and bandwidth

32. Technical Barriers & Challenges (5) Other technologies: • Extended operating times of UA need to be addressed • Engine Technology for MALE onwards (LE) and for tactical • Current engines are off-the-shelf not tailored for UAS • Remote control of the engine • Issue may affect other systems • UCAV is an issue but should not be excluded from consideration • Will have to meet requirements when flying for training • Military combat operations may not involve GAT

33. Non technical Barriers & Challenges • Identify and prioritize 3 main non technical Barriers and Challenges • Public acceptance including other Air users • Ability to create harmonized regulations and unclear demands and decision making responsibilities • Need for a large scale UAV business case • Legislation/Regulation • pilot responsibility • Liability/Insurance • Barrier: economical – insurance costs for commercial operation • Training (certification of pilot) PPL or CPL, rules, licensing, training course • Public acceptance/ privacy issues • noise-emission/physiological aspect- robot in the sky – safety • Procedures (by EUROCONTROL and NAAs) • ATC procedures are in place, but we need to understand the possible adaptations/accommodations for UAS • Legal liability – NATO Joint Capability Group on UAVs is addressing this. • Who is liable in case of DL loss: operator ? manufacturer ? • Insurance cost for the civil • Public acceptance • Existing airspace users • SESAR • Infrastructure • Funding