Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Considerations for Certification and Interoperability

1. Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Considerations for Certification and Interoperability Aircraft Certification Information Session

2. Outline • FAA Activities • EASA Activities • FAA/EASA Collaboration • Reference Information on EASA Annexes

3. Status of FAA Regulatory Development • Starting Small and “Do No Harm” • Why? Market surveys indicate majority of UAS developed in the next 8-10 years will be under 20 pounds • Includes civil, military, and commercial use • Creation of an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) • Initial committee meeting held May 27-29 in DC • An aggressive schedule (6-9 months) • Rulemaking Process is lengthy • Projected final rule due in 2010/2011

4. More Regulatory Plans • FAA has several certification teams focusing on future rule development: • Restricted Category guidance • 14 CFR Part 1 Definitions • 14 CFR Part 21 • 14 CFR Part 23 review & applicability • 14 CFR Part 27 (Rotorcraft) review & applicability • Ground Control Station Technology • Automatic Take-off & Landing Technology

5. Experimentals and Approvals • 31 Experimental Certificates Issued since August 2005 • 8 more in the queue • Certificates of Authorization/Waivers • Still between 80-100 per year • Recent Challenge with Optionally Piloted Aircraft • Interest is increasing in using for UAS equipment development • Need guidance for the field

6. Policies & Guidance Material

7. Policies & Guidance Material

8. RTCA – Building Avionics Standards • Developing Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards (MASPS) for: • UAS • Sense & Avoid (Includes separation assurance) • Command & Control • Recent re-baselining of Terms of Reference • MASPS projected for >2015 • Risk-based approach • Industry support (or lack of it) drives the schedule • Harmonization with EUROCAE WG-73

9. EASA Activities • The A-NPA • A-NPA 16/2005 issued on 7 November 2005 • Still available on the EASA web-site: • http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/r_archives.php • Consultation closed on 7 February 2006 • Basis for the A-NPA: • Report of the JAA and EUROCONTROL joint initiative on UAV (UAV Task-Force report) • http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/r_archives.php • Purpose of the A-NPA: • Envisage a policy for UAV systems (airworthiness)) certification • Solicit comments on specific points

10. EASA Activities • The policy: • Scope • Objectives • Definitions • Design and production • Continuing airworthiness • Environmental protection UAS = flying vehicle + ground segment + control data link

11. EASA Activities • The Comment Response Document was published on 06/12/2007: http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/r_archives.php • The Agency acknowledge the significant delay compared to initial previsions • Majority of comments concur that the option chosen by the Agency to develop a policy for UAV/S certification within the constraints described in the A-NPA is a step in the right direction. • Was open for reactions until 06/02/2008.

12. EASA Activities • Highlights of comments received: • Conventional versus safety target approach for certification • The two alternatives for selecting the manned CS. • UAV system safety analysis • Need for DOA • Certificate of airworthiness and control stations • Environment • UAV or UAS? • ‘sense and avoid’ • Total system approach as proposed by Sweden • Security • Coordination with military working group on UAV • UAV below 150 KG • Regulatory framework for UAV: Role of EASA and development of a comprehensive framework for UAV regulation

13. Reactions on CRD • Reactions have been received from: • 5 Manufacturers • 1 Association of Manufacturers • 1 Research Establishment • 2 Authorities • 1 Pilot Association • One issue has been heavily commented: • Safety target approach/ Target safety levels • Analysis of reactions will be done so that the policy is issued in Summer

14. Contacts with Other Organisations • ICAO: • EASA is participating into the Unmanned Aircraft System Study Group (UASSG) • FAA and Transport Canada: • The three organizations will communicate about any activity initiated by one of them in the field of UAV • EUROCONTROL: • Regular contacts are maintained , be it in the context of general coordination or specific meetings, or through its participation in workshops

15. Contacts with Other Organisations • EUROCAE: • Agency provide regular updates to the EUROCAE working group WG-73 • WG-73 was asked to work on certain tasks identified in the CRD • European Defence Agency: • The Agency intends to build on the first contacts established with EDA. • NATO: • NATO is considering inviting the Agency to its FINAS working group

16. Contacts with Other Organisations • Workshop on 01/02/2008 • Objective of sharing information was achieved: • Presentations are on the EASA web-site at • http://www.easa.europa.eu/home/g_events.html • Consider further coordination between Institutions • Seek EASA management agreement to be more present in UAV activities • EASA will participate into the activities related to UAV below 150 KG • Noted different views expressed on EASA approach to safety objective and encouraged reactions on the CRD • Reactions on CRD will be fully evaluated • Confirmed the need to publish the policy quickly now

17. EASA extension of scope • Previous Basic Regulation (1592) establishes Community competence only for the regulation of the airworthinessand environmental compatibility of products • Scope of this regulation isnow extended to air operations; flight crew licensing and third country aircraft: • New Basic Regulation No 216/2008 dated 20 February 2008 and effective 8 April 2008 • Implementing rules for manned aircraft:1 year later IRs for UAS crews and UAS ops expected in due time

18. EASA extension of scope • EASA’s scope proposed to cover also the safety regulation of airport operations, air traffic management and air navigation services: • Opinion 03/2007 for aerodromes was issued in December 2007 • Opinion 01/2008 for ATM/ANS dated 15 April 2008 • Legislative proposal for both could be issued by the Commission in summer 2008 • EASA legal remit fully extended by say 2011? IRs for access by UAS to airspace expected in due time

19. EASA Conclusions • Present and future extensions of scope have been described • This present extension of scope will allow us to address operations and crew licensing issues for UAV • EASA is committed to finalise this summer the policy for UAV systems certification • EASA is willing to cooperate and contribute to the development of a comprehensive UAV regulatory framework. • …debate is necessary before proposing any IRs: EASA looks forward for your continuing support

20. FAA/EASA Collaborative Efforts • Improve communication approach • Propose Quarterly Teleconferences • Rulemaking approaches (Includes design, production, maintenance, operations, and licensing) • Area of common interest • Identification of priority areas for future rulemaking • Starts with information exchange as a working method • Sharing data in a generalized format on safety cases made by applicants without being project specific • Process that established the “tailoring case” • Continued Airworthiness data • Identification of issues surrounding the Validation of Approvals, e.g. future bilateral considerations • For example, issues surrounding VLA/VLR • Desire to mitigate burden on applicants

21. Summary • The Challenges of Integrating UAS are many • Sharing the Workload will be Key to a Timely Success • This is Not a Race – It’s about Safety

22. ADDITIONAL REFERENCE INFORMATION

23. EASA-Annex I • More information on the policy

24. EASA activities • The policy (I): • Scope: • UAS with a maximum take-off mass of 150 kg or more; which are not excluded by Article 1(2) or Article 4(2) and Annex II of EC Regulation 1592/2002. • Objectives: • Airworthiness(protection of people and property on the ground); environmental protection (ICAO annex 16) • Definitions: • insist on the system: UAS UAS = flying vehicle + ground segment + control data link

25. EASA activities • The policy (II): • Procedure for UAS certification: Part 21 is applicable • Type certificate (TC): • Part 21 A.17: type certification basis • Design organisation approval for designer • Production organisation approval for manufacturer • Certificate of airworthiness and Noise certificates for individual UAS • Restricted certificate of airworthiness may be issued for operations in remote areas • This procedure would allow for a stepped by step approach: • Restricted certificate of airworthiness • TC

26. EASA activities • The policy (III): • UAS elements to be included in the type certification basis: • Any function and associated equipments that can prejudice continued safe flight and landing or environmental compatibility • Typical list is provide in attachment 1 of the policy « No hazard » principle for mission avionics and transmission of mission data States may voluntarily apply elements of the policy to UAV < 150 Kg

27. EASA activities • The policy (IV): • Type Certification basis: • Adapted from existing Certification Specification (CS) for manned aircraft • Methodology to select appropriate CS. • Tailoring for UAS of selected CS • UAS system safety assessment • Special conditions: • emergency recovery capability; • communication link; • level of autonomy; • human machine interface; • Others • Detailed guidance is contained into attachment 2 to the policy

28. EASA activities • The policy (IV): • Continuing airworthiness: • Part M is applicable • Environmental protection: • Noise: appropriate chapters of annex 16 volume I • Need for adaptation for UAS specific use • Gaseous emissions and fuel venting: annex 16 volume II

29. EASA-Annex II • Disposal of main comments in CRD

30. Main issues highlighted by the A-NPA consultation and replies in CRD: • Issues fully within the “old” (Reg. 1592/2002) EASA remit (I): • Conventional versus safety target approach for certification: • Conventional approach retained • The two alternatives for selecting the manned CS: • Kinetic energy method retained • UAS system safety analysis • Quantitative level as in selected CS for first issue of the Policy • Ask EUROCAE WG-73 to develop further guidance for the system airworthiness aspects

31. Main issues highlighted by the A-NPA consultation and replies in CRD: • Issues fully within the “old” (Reg. 1592/2002) EASA remit (II): • Need for DOA • Possible alleviation for light UAS • Certificate of airworthiness and control stations • Certificate of airworthiness covers one air vehicle and one control station • Environment: • Stick to ICAO Annex 16 keeping in mind that turbo-jet powered UAS with short take-off distances and/ or special missions may necessitate specific measures. • UAV or UAS? • UAS

32. Main issues highlighted by the A-NPA consultation and replies in CRD: • Issues fully within the “old” (Reg. 1592/2002) EASA remit : way forward • Short term: • Review the reactions • When appropriate modify the policy • Publish the policy in Summer because we have already 3 applications • Further development of the policy: • several tasks proposed to the EUROCAE WG-73 as described in the previous slides

33. Main issues highlighted by the A-NPA consultation and replies in CRD: • Issues outside the EASA remit (I): • ‘sense and avoid’: • Still not part of the Policy • To develop a special condition using EUROCONTROL specification relative to military UAS used in operational air traffic outside segregated airspace • Agency will request EUROCAE WG 73 to develop the special condition • Total system approach as proposed by Sweden • Attractive concept but goes beyond UAS certification • Deserve further study

34. Main issues highlighted by the A-NPA consultation and replies in CRD: • Issues outside the EASA remit (II): • Security: • Key issue but not within EASA remit • Safety impacts of security systems are within EASA remit • Coordination with military working group on UAS: • Importance recognised • USAR version 3 and most likely STANAG 4671 can be used with certain limitations • UAS below 150 KG: • Coordination between Member States using EUROCAE WG-73 is encouraged

35. Main issues highlighted by the A-NPA consultation and replies in CRD: • Issues outside the EASA remit: way forward • regulatory framework for UAV: Role of EASA and development of a comprehensive framework for UAV regulations: • Create a group to identify building blocks and road map for a comprehensive framework for UAV regulation: • The group should report to the Commission because the Commission is competent for all issues related to UAV regulation. It should include the main players and take into account existing or planned activities. A specific task for the group would be to develop regulatory impact assessment (in particular safety case). • The group should allocate responsibilities so that each player is responsible to organise its work. The group may also organise further studies as appropriate (e.g. Total System Approach, Safety Target approach)