A cornucopia of news, opinion, views, facts and quirky bits that need to be talked about. Join our community and join in the conversation on all matters aviation. The blog includes our weekly round-up of the bits of European aviation you may otherwise have missed – That Was The Week That Was
In the October edition of the Aviation Intelligence Reporter, we addressed the stages of grief that the manned aviation industry has been passing through on its way to acceptance that UAVs are here to stay and that they may, in fact, be good for the aviation industry. Like a good psychotherapist, ICAO has been listening to the manned industry drone on about its concerns. But ICAO is now moving from passive listener to pro-active problem solver, and it is doing this not only for drones, but for other users of uncontrolled airspace.
In late August, ICAO hosted an Aerospace Symposium jointly with the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs. This was the third and final in a series: the first held in 2015 in Montreal; the second in 2016 in Abu Dhabi. In conjunction with the aerospace symposia have been regular meetings of a space learning group, organised under the ICAO Air Navigation Bureau and with cooperation of UNOOSA.
Since its inception in 2014, the space learning group has been an informal group of scholars and representatives from NGOs, trade associations and regulatory agencies nominated by member States to consider ICAO involvement in activities above controlled airspace.
Not announced at the ICAO-UNOOSA Aerospace Symposium (at least not formally by the ANB, but over coffee in the hallway) are plans by the ICAO secretariat to transform the space learning group into a formal Working Group under the RPAS Panel. The creation of a Panel and Working Groups under that Panel are first steps in the creation of SARPs and PANS. It is to be hoped that the space industry is ready for such treatment.
Why space activities would be included under the RPAS Panel is unclear. Perhaps the RPAS Panel is being converted into an Advanced Technologies panel. That certainly seems to be the case, based on statements by the ANB at two back-to-back events in mid-September: the Second RPAS Symposium and Drone Enable, ICAO’s UAS industry symposium.
At the RPAS event, the ICAO secretariat acknowledged that its treatment of UAS falls outside the Chicago Convention – somewhat. Specifically, it was asserted that ICAO can deal with RPAS – larger UAVs that will be integrated into controlled airspace – but that its mandate under the Convention in regard to sUAVs is lacking.
Some drone Industry stakeholders want ICAO involvement. This much was clear from the first day of the RPAS event. Myriad rules across many jurisdictions make compliance with local rules difficult for multi-national companies. It is expensive to ask lawyers to answer questions that might ensure regulatory compliance. If we can all get on the same page, we can all save money. A global framework is needed, or so the argument goes.
Moreover, member States have asked ICAO to get involved. In response, ICAO has charted a two-tiered track. In regard to RPAS, ICAO announced that it will redraft 18 of its 19 Annexes to the Chicago Convention to accommodate these UAVs. The lone hold-out? Units of measure. It is hoped that nothing in the use of RPAS will change how we measure things. As to sUAVs, ICAO is merely providing ‘guidance’ to member States. In the hive-mind of the secretariat, this accommodates any issues with jurisdictional mandate, or lack thereof, under the Chicago Convention. Should we expect the same for spacecraft? What is the relationship between sUAVs and rocket ships that warrants the creation of a space Working Group under the RPAS Panel?
The dots were connected by Stephen Creamer, Director of the ANB, at the conclusion of the RPAS symposium. Technologies are evolving rapidly; for everything to remain the same, everything must change. Manned aviation resisting change is like asking for a rotary dial phone when you could have a smart phone. The computing power involved in SpaceX bringing a first stage back from near orbit and landing it on a platform at sea is enough to bring about what SESAR and NextGen have been trying to do for decades. The message was that the aviation industry stakeholders, particularly ATM providers, need to think about how external activity outside aviation can be brought into aviation.
Aviation Advocacy is never slow to point out how slow IACO can be, and we are allergic to poor thinking, so we are delighted to applaud ICAO for its forward-thinking perspective. sUAVs operating below 150m and spacecraft capable of attaining orbit have little, if anything, to do with the aviation industry. Technologies associated with these burgeoning industries, however, have the capabilities to disrupt the aviation industry. Imagine a space-based ATM platform that uses UTM capabilities to provide real-time, efficient ANS. Now imagine if that could be provided to users on a competitive basis.
The danger is that ICAO involvement in sUAVs and space-related activities will stifle innovation. This is not an unwarranted concern. Even high-level policy statements from ICAO could frustrate this disruptive process. There is a certain circular irony in the thought of a disruptive move disrupting the disruption, so we hope that ICAO remains true to Creamer’s words: wanting to shake things up and disrupt some entrenched actors. Otherwise, it is a bald-faced power grab by an international intergovernmental organization.
