Technical Liability in Satellite Navigation

1. Technical Liability inSatellite Navigation Kim O’Neil Advanced Aviation Technology Ltd.

2. Introduction • GNSS a complex Issue: • technical • commercial • political • military • Institutional • legal • GNSS Liability issues are linked with each.

3. Introduction • Civil Aviation a Regulated Industry • ALL GNSS solutions must be certified • Narrows the list of options….. • Can use these facts to explore liability issues.

4. Introduction • Example: Swissair (229 dead): • Current claims may exceed $16B • Attempts to limit damages: High Seas Act. • Swissair, Boeing, Delta, Inflight Technologies • Dupont sued for $3.8B - Mylar insulation • Indicates potential Risks for GNSS….

5. Key Issues • GNSS not designed for Civil Aviation • A generic system - many applications • Huge commercial significance • A Major change: • Navigation service not provided by CAAs • Civil Aviation still adjusting…..

6. Key Issues • US would prefer a GPS only solution • For rest of world there is issue of control: • DoD • Military threat? • Commercial threat? • Common mode failure…. Etc.

7. Key Issues • US will gain enormous benefits • especially as sole provider • nothing ‘wrong’ with that…….. BUT • Vested interests are very significant……. • This is just commercial reality!

8. European View • Dependence on GPS unacceptable? “If Europe does not act promptly, then control of system………. User requirements standards and certification schemes will be set by those who own the system…..” • Europe now committed to Galileo

9. European View • Europe will have to work hard to: • launch Galileo • maintain the operational system • gain benefits (who will certify Galileo receivers?) • Competing GNSS’ may emerge: • different services? • different markets?

10. Role of ICAO • A UN organisation: • co-operation on civil aviation matters • ICAO members certify own services • Each accepts certification of other States: • Navigation services • Aircraft, avionics. • Crew, procedures etc. • Convention Preserves National Sovereignty

11. ICAO Standards • ICAO SARPs not enforceable: • implemented in National legislation • States can go their own way…... • SARPs cover: • Interoperability • Safety

12. ICAO Standards • ICAO GNSS SARPS based on GPS: • retrofitting.. • compatible with enhanced GPS • A Problem for Galileo….? • If Galileo adds “other” services….

13. Status of GNSS • ICAO will not ‘approve’ GNSS • No legal power or delegated responsibility • Responsibility remains with States • ICAO a forum for common standards • ICAO Convention & legal framework: • not adaptable for global services • ICAO Constitution not likely to change: • States will reserve right of sovereignty

14. Status of GNSS • Separate GNSS Convention likely: • High level • Covering ALL industries/application areas • Limited service level guarantees • BUT NO safety assurances • ICAO will concentrate on: • interoperability • safety of augmentation systems

15. US Position • US a Single Market • Dominant market position • Dominant Regulatory Role: • ITU, ICAO (also ARINC, RTCA etc.) • TSOs, Certification • Single Legal Framework

16. US Position (2) • GPS Certification - a domestic matter • declare GPS ready • need only consistent internal legal framework • define service levels (but not guarantee…) • Reciprocal agreements: • other States ‘accept’ GPS • this gives US access to new markets

17. US Position (3) • No ‘proof’ of safety likely: • independent audits unlikely • commercial interests • military secrets • Indemnities for US against loss: • cross waivers for Galileo?

18. GPS and WAAS • FAA policy: • safety services via WAAS • WAAS a continental US service • although doubts remain..….. • Reciprocal agreements with other States • to ‘accept’ WAAS services…..

19. GPS and WAAS • WAAS Certified by FAA??? • FAA designed and operated system • probably no special legislation necessary • may simply “declare operational” • WAAS receivers certified by FAA • Can then enter global market…...

20. Rest of World • GNSS and WAAS: • operate across National boundaries • ‘simple’ for US • complex for rest of world • Rest of world: • no control • no certification (or legal means to certify) • but obliged to indemnify US against loss…..!

21. WAAS and EGNOS • WAAS/EGNOS issues similar to GPS • EGNOS • operates across National boundaries • But in Europe: • certification essential (across all States) • need assurances for safety services • must be transparent • accountability

22. EGNOS • Additional legal assurances required • WAAS/EGNOS Cross waiver unworkable • Liability issues in US more extreme • EGNOS would be exposed, WAAS protected • Who will certify EGNOS receivers? • EASA too late to help..…… • although EGNOS looking VERY late too….

23. Augmentation • Europe needs a consistent legal solution • Accountability will drive certification • Augmentation Services: • certification required • International agreement • implemented in National legislation

24. Augmentation • Certification for Ground Augmentation • Easier to achieve • Carried out in National legislation • Can use GPS and Galileo • Few legal changes required • Local Area Augmentation • High integrity where required • “wide area” ground based also e.g. VDL mode 4

25. GNSS and Certification • GNSS can be established: • by International Convention • services defined but not certified/guaranteed • Safety guaranteed by Augmentation Services • i.e. Augmentation Services carry risk…… • Certification in National legislation only

26. GNSS and Certification • IMPLIES ground based Augmentation……. • Ground based Augmentation: • Can be certified in current framework • Safety ensured by design, integrity • Technologies available: • e.g. VDL mode 4

27. GNSS and Certification • No changes to liability sharing: • airlines • CAAs • manufacturers etc. • Damage due to GNSS failure contained. • GNSS protected. • Possible NOW.

28. The End! Thank You!