Discussion-paper-submitted-by-EASA-UAS-Workshop-#-3-Version-1.pdf

Discussion paper submitted by EASA UAS Workshop # 3 - Version 1.0 Page 1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM (UAS) PANEL PROCESS 3 RD WORKSHOP 19 OCTOBER 2011 (SAFETY AND CERTIFICATION) DISCUSSION PAPER1 UAS Safe to be flown and flown safely 1 This document has been compiled on request of the European Commission in preparation for the EC UAS Panels 3rd Workshop on 19 October 2011. Additional comments and inputs can be supplied by e-mail to single.sky.contacteurocontrol.int until 13 October 2011. Written contributions will be made available on the conference website unless otherwise specified by its author. 2 1. Introduction.3 1.1 Background.3 1.2 Five Workshops .3 1.3 Objective and scope of third Workshop.3 2. The Importance of UAS safety rules4 3. Present situation4 3.1 Market developments4 3.2 Progress of regulatory actions.4 4. Demarcation between national and European-level rules (issue 1) .5 4.1 Situation.5 4.2 Possible options for rulemaking6 4.3 Possible options for type certification of “light” UAS (e.g. 25 to 150 Kg)7 5. Rules for UAS operations (issue 2)7 5.1 Which operators subject to certification?7 5.2 Which types of operations to consider first?8 5.3 Development of safety objectives for D lead to utilising parts of the airspace not significantly used by (or even accessible to) manned aviation (e.g. very low level; extremely high altitudes; inside dangerous airspace affected by volcanic, nuclear or chemical activity; close to “obstacles” like bridges or masts; in urban canyons; indoor; etc.). Furthermore UAS could merge with some of the concepts being developed by SESAR (e.g. 4D trajectory; extensive use of data link; System Wide Information Management SWIM; etc.), and promote technological developments (e.g. “detect and avoid”). In the long run this could potentially raise the safety level of conventional “manned” commercial and general aviation. In order to allow UAS to be safe and to fly safely, complex regulatory issues need to be solved, in compliance with EU law on the Single European Sky and with Regulation (EC) No 216/20082 on common rules in the field of civil aviation. As a follow-up to the conference in 2010, the European Commission (EC) has therefore launched a process which will help to develop a strategy for the future of UAS production and use in the European Union (EU), identifying any key issues currently hindering market access, under safe conditions, for UAS. 1.2 Five Workshops The mentioned process is being progressed through five Workshops: The first one, exploring market perspectives, took place on 12 July 2011; The second one (13-14 September 2011) addressed insertion of UAS into non- segregated airspace and electro-magnetic spectrum; The third Workshop, for which this Discussion Paper has been prepared, will assess the state of play on safety regulation of UAS; The fourth one, currently scheduled on 16 November 2011, will explore liability issues, privacy protection, protection of personal data, societal impacts, ethical concerns, and other matters to be regulated in the internal market; The fifth Workshop, scheduled in January 2012, will identify technology gaps, priorities for R 166 public or private entities involved in the field; Around 400 different UAS types known, about 10% of which already in service; 4 applications for type certification received by EASA (150 Kg). It seems highly probable that the potential size of the civil market for UAS will expand significantly in the medium term. However for the sector to be able to take advantage of these commercial opportunities it will be necessary that: a pragmatic, clear and efficient safety regulatory framework for UAS is developed; and high standards of safety can be assured in relation to third parties on the ground and other users of non-segregated airspace. 3.2 Progress of regulatory actions UAS used in international operations, regardless of the weight, fall within the mandate of ICAO. ICAO established a specific UAS Study Group in 2007, amended Annex 13 in 2010, and 3 Amendment of Annex 13 in 2010 ; debate at 37th General Assembly in October 2010 ; Circular 328 published in March 2011 ; State Letter 2011/55 proposing amendments to Annexes 2 and 7. 4 Published in March 2011. 5 http:/www.easa.europa.eu/certification/docs/policy-statements/E.Y013- 01_%20UAS_%20Policy.pdf 5 published Circular 328 in 2011. In the same year it proposed to amend Annexes 2 and 7 in order to accommodate UAS. The current scope of B.R. covers all aviation domains: airworthiness, air operations, flight crew licensing, third country aircraft, Air Traffic Management, Air Navigation Services and aerodromes. All UAS fall within the current mandate of EASA with the exclusion of: UAS engaged in military, customs, police or similar services6. For them the Member States shall ensure that such services have due regard as far as is practical to the objectives of the Basic Regulation; UAS of any mass specifically designed or modified for research, experimental or scientific purposes, and likely to be produced in very limited numbers7; UAS that have been in the service of military forces, unless the aircraft is of a type for which a design standard has been adopted by the Agency8; UAS with an operating mass of no more than 150 kg9. Within the scope of its remit, EASA has published in 2009 a “policy” to guide applicants for airworthiness certification of civil UAS above 150 Kg. Further rulemaking actions are planned. Safety oversight of UAS outside the scope of the Basic Regulation is the responsibility of EU Member States. Other entities are active in the field of safety regulation or development of voluntary standards for UAS, including EUROCONTROL, JARUS and Eurocae. Further information on the regulatory progress is contained in attachment A. The remainder of this paper sets out a series of safety regulatory issues which will be the subject of the workshop on 19 October. The six main issues are as follows: 1. Demarcation between national and European-level rules 2. Rules for operations 3. Rules for crew licensing 4. How to regulate very small UAS 5. Regulation of non-military State UAS 6. Safety data collection and analysis 4. Demarcation between national and European-level rules (issue 1) 4.1 Situation Currently Annex II to Basic Regulation excludes “small” UAS of a mass not greater than 150 Kg. This implies that for those national rules apply. The latter are potentially 27 different sets of rules, not necessarily translated in all languages, not necessarily identical and not necessarily updated at the same time (e.g. following an amendment of the ICAO Annexes). While the most organised and developed EU Member States (MS) can probably establish national rules in a quicker way than the EU, in the medium term the existence of several disparate sets of national rules can most probably be seen as a major obstacle for the internal market, not only for the UAS manufacturers, but also for the civil UAS pilots and operators. 0nly a minority (i.e. less than 10) of EU MS have established rules for small UAS (or have concrete plans in that respect), which may lead to legal uncertainties in the majority of EU MS. 6 Article 1.2 of Basic Regulation 7 Annex II, letter (b) to Basic Regulation 8 Annex II, letter (d) to Basic Regulation 9 Annex II, letter (i) to Basic Regulation 6 To mitigate said situation, the NL CAA promoted a voluntary group of authorities (i.e. JARUS), with no legal personality, to develop “harmonised”10 rules, mainly focusing on “small” UAS. JARUS membership progressively expanded to include non-European authorities (e.g. FAA). It is expected that the deliverables form JARUS would be revised and published by Eurocae. However today most experts in JARUS and other fora, agree that for several specific issues linked to UAS (i.e. Detect and Avoid, command and control data link, communications with ATS, use of airspace, operations in Visual Line-of-Sight VLOS -, operations beyond VLOS, criteria for crew licensing, rules for air operations, etc.) the mass limit of 150 Kg has no relevance. Also EASA has therefore joined JARUS and both are supporting ICAO, since in fact for many novel issues linked to UAS the mass limit of 150 Kg has no technical relevance. In any case EASA has already a task in its Rulemaking Programme 2012-15 to develop (starting in 2013) rules not only for UAS airworthiness, but also for flight standards (i.e. operations and crew licensing). And in the field of flight standards, the limit of 150 Kg is even less relevant in comparison e.g. to the type of operations (e.g. VLOS/BVLOS; VFR/IFR). 4.2 Possible options for rulemaking Therefore for the issue of safety regulation of small UAS, based on the facts summarised immediately above, the following options could be envisaged: a) “do nothing” (i.e. regulation of UAS below 150 remains a national responsibility); b) Promote JARUS and Eurocae activities in order to publish “harmonised” rules for small UAS as soon as possible (while the scope of the Basic Regulation will remain limited as today) which will provide no guarantee of uniform transposition at the same date, since it would replicate the JAA model, which the legislator has decided to replace in 2002; c) Amend the B.R. to include rulemaking for civil UAS of any mass, in which case there will be “common”11 EU rules, building upon JARUS and Eurocae work as in b); in this case however, the time required (i.e. about 3 years) to amend the Basic Regulation and (2 more years) to adopt the related implementing rules, has to be taken into account; d) “hybrid” option: i.e. accelerate work of JARUS and Eurocae in the short term, and in parallel undertake the procedure to extend the scope of the Basic Regulation to small UAS (in this case stressing that the rules for “small” UAS have to be “proportionate”). Question 1: Which is the preferred option for rulemaking in relation to civil UAS below 150 Kg: a) “do nothing” = independent national competence as today; b) « harmonised » rules developed through JARUS and Eurocae ; c) « common » but proportionate EU rules; d) “harmonised” rules in the short term followed by “common” rules in the medium term (“hybrid” solution); or e) Any other alternative? 10 In this DP the term « harmonised » refers to rules drafted thorough joint effort and jointly published at EU level, but requiring legal tools at national level to enforce them. This was the situation under the former JAA. JAA experience has shown that transposition of the harmonised rules never happens at the same date, while, during the process, differences may be introduced. 11« Common » rules are those developed according to the Basic Regulation. Therefore immediately applicable (at the same date and with no uncontrolled differences) by all Member States and by all natural or legal persons residing therein. Transitioning from “harmonised” to “common” rules was the main reason to adopt the Basic Regulation in 2002. 7 4.3 Possible options for type certification of “light” UAS (e.g. 25 to 150 Kg) Today the scope of the Basic Regulation, for both rulemaking and certification, includes UAS above 150 Kg. This implies that applicants have to bear the EASA fees, travel from time to time to Köln and are often obliged to speak with EASA in English, French or German. These factors represent a burden for Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) designing “small” UAS12. If the scope of B.R. were extended to “small “UAS this would not necessarily mean that type certificates for those aircraft should be issued by EASA. Therefore, if there were “common” rules at EU level, the following options could be envisaged for airworthiness design approvals (e.g. for “light” UAS between 25 and 150 Kg): a) “do nothing” (i.e. remove the exclusion of UAS below 150 Kg from Annex II to B.R. and hence EASA would have competence for both rulemaking and type certification); b) Even having extended the rulemaking competence in the Basic Regulation to small UAS, legislate in the same amendment to the B.R. that for such UAS the type certificates (and other airworthiness design approvals) would be issued at national level. This would have benefits in minimizing language and travel obstacles, due to proximity of the competent authority at national level, and maintaining a certain number of high quality jobs distributed across the EU; but this option could introduce differences in national fees charged to UAS manufacturers for certification work. Under this option the uniform application of the “common” rules would of course be checked through EASA standardisation inspections. Question 2: If there were “common” rules for civil UAS below 150kg, which would be the preferred option for airworthiness design approvals (i.e. TC, STC, changes to TC): a) “do nothing”, i.e. Type Certificates and similar issued by EASA and consequent application of EASA fees? b) Leave to the competent authorities at national level the task of issuing airworthiness design approval to “small” UAS (e.g. between 25 and 150 Kg), based on “common” rules and subject to EASA standardisation inspections? c) Any other alternative? 5. Rules for UAS operations (issue 2) 5.1 Which operators subject to certification? In State Letter 2011/55, when proposing amendments to Annex 2 to the Chicago Convention, ICAO stated that an “operator” shall have an “RPAS Operator Certificate” (ROC) issued in accordance with regulations applicable in the Contracting States and in a manner that is consistent with the provisions of Annex 613. The scope of ICAO standards covers civil cross- border operations, regardless of the mass of the UAS, but excluding aircraft models (i.e. UAS used only for recreational purposes). 12 Micro, mini and very light UAS (below e.g. 25 Kg), possibly not subject to Type Certification, are discussed under issue 4, in paragraph 7 of present paper. 13 The work plan of the ICAO UAS Study Group includes developing a new Part IV for Annex 6, devoted to UAS. 8 According Article 8 of the Basic Regulation, commercial14 aircraft operators, whether of “manned” or unmanned aircraft, shall hold a certificate, issued by the competent authority at national level, but based (for aircraft in the scope of said Basic Regulation) on common rules. The common EU rules cover also “aerial work” (or special operations), which historically have not been standardised by ICAO for manned aviation. In other words the scope of ICAO envisaged standards in Annex 6 potentially covers not only commercial aerial work offered by UAS, but also “corporate” professional use of UAS (e.g. an oil company or an electricity supplier, which own and operate their UAS in order to inspect respective lines). Such “corporate” operators are instead not covered by the present scope of certification under Art. 8 of current Basic Regulation. In the case of “manned” aviation, business or corporate aviation is directly un