Military Airworthiness and UAS A European perspective 1st February 2008 Heiko Possel

Involvement of EDA Contents What are the problems for military aviation UAV traffic insertion Military Aviation Safety Role of EASA Conclusions The content of my briefing is focused on explaining EDA activities and intentions in the light of the intent of the workshop, which is discussing how to develop a comprehensive framework for UAV regulations in close cooperation with the military and security stakeholders The content of my briefing will explain..

Involvement of EDA in airworthiness and aviation safety 2005 - EDA fully operational, UAVs high priority for pMS 2006 – UAV Airworthiness agenda leads to: Charting of regulatory activities Launching of technology oriented studies (LOS/BLOS data links, Sense and Avoid and UAV Simulation test bed) 2007 - EDA approaches industry to cooperate more and develop jointly Major aviation industrial players propose to develop a technology roadmap for UAV traffic insertion EDA upgrades proposal to include all other relevant issues (e.g. regulatory framework) 2008 – UAV traffic insertion study is launched (Air4All consortium) EDA is a very young organisation, yet in the area of UAVs we have initiated already quite some activities.. Since EDA became fully operational in 2005 AUVs have been high on the agenda as the member states stressed the importance of solving the airworthiness issue to allow a broader use of UAVs. In 2006 a special project team was created , and under that umbrella EDA started to chart the numerous activities on the regulatory front. Our basic question was if these activities would enable the specific requirements in the CFSP that Europe should be able to do EU autonomous operations and execute Europe wide missions in support of for instance tracking drugs transports, fighting organised crime, helping to protect vulnerable areas for natural of man-made disasters etc. To chart the technological barriers for broader UAV use, EDA initiated 3 studies In 2007 a more structural dialogue with industry developed, as industry recognised that it needs to work together if Europe wanted to achieve or maintain a key position in aeronautical technology. Especially while studying UAV traffic insertion the major European industries came to the awareness that no single company could afford the technology development on its own.. And further more the required support from legislative and regulatory stakeholders needed to be organised on a European scale..

Situation for military UAS UAS are expected to be used extensively in the future ….. BUT….. Key success factors for a wider use of UAS are: reliability (airworthiness) threat to other airspace users and public E.g. lack of mature sense & avoid technology will limit possibilities for use of LE UAS until at least 2012+ Civil regulations will rule the use of UAS except for special cases -> both technological and regulatory issues have to be tackled in parallel

Fragmentation of activities: What are the problems? Fragmentation of activities: Lots of initiatives but little coordination/ cooperation Several industries build experimental UAS Several working groups address the regulatory issues Several nations are developing sense&avoid technology Island solutions or coherent EU/NATO approach? No (common) regulatory framework for military UAS little involvement of responsible military authorities?

How EDA intends to tackle these challenges Encourage more information exchange between all stakeholders (industry, regulatory bodies and nations) Encourage common EU/NATO solutions Harmonize ongoing and planned projects and activities (e.g. UAV traffic insertion roadmap) Most promising regulatory venues for military UAS: step1: consolidation and harmonisation of current views and policy of military aviation authorities step 2: development of a new common EU wide military aviation safety framework

Harmonization: UAV Traffic Insertion - Road Map Market Entry Point State UAVs Market Entry Point Civil UAVs Non Type Certificated UAVs Type Certificated UAVs Experimental UAVs State UAVs Civil/State UAVs In the ARM directorate we have recently launched a new approach to stimulate cooperation focused on address the challenge of enabling UAVs to operate alongside conventional air traffic. A consortium of aviation companies and research institutes under the name Air4All is now investing in the development of UAS and their related technologies. The joint initiative -- the result of extensive consultation between the Agency, the European Commission and the Aerospace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD) -- aims to establish a joint and complementary cooperation agenda. The study aims at progression from the current state of affairs, in which military UAVs can fly in segregated airspace, to a situation in which civilian and government-operated UAVs could operate alongside other manned aircraft in integrated airspace by 2012. This agenda will propose innovative technology development and system demonstrations for UAVs to be considered fully airworthy and for the proper regulatory framework to be in place for this integration. This approach will also encourage the development of multi-purpose technologies, supported by budgets of the Commission as well as investment by industry. It will reduce fragmentation and duplication of UAV components which civil and military applications have in common. It has the potential, if properly exploited by all stakeholders, to move Europe quickly to a leadership position in a field which is of prime importance for European armed forces and the European aerospace industry alike. Step 1 Segregated Airspace Step 2 Non Segregated Airspace Step 3 Non Segregated Airspace Step 4 Non Segregated Airspace Step 5 Non Segregated Airspace Achieved 2008 2010 2012 2015 Fly within National Borders Worldwide ICAO 2007 Study ~ 500k€ (EDA OB) 2008 – 11 various Projects 2011 – 14 various Projects 2014+ TBA *Note: Figures are first rough max. attempt prior to any discussion/negotiation of WP details and without insertion of already available technologies

Involvement of EDA Contents What are the problems for military aviation UAV traffic insertion Military Aviation Safety Role of EASA Conclusions After this introduction on EDA activities since it’s installation, I would now like to discuss the specific problem of military UAS. This will lead to a suggestion on how EASA and the military could work more together.

“is the system safe to fly” Quality control and independent auditing The “larger picture” Aviation safety Air- Worthiness “is the system safe to fly” Continued OPS MAINT TRG ATM Interaction with other air traffic Quality control and independent auditing I don’t have to explain to this fine group of experts that Aviation safety integrates system reliability and safety and interaction with other air space users. Aviation safety rests basically on three pillars as depicted on the right. Only if all 3 pillars are equally and adequately addressed can we achieve a proper level of aviation safety. Ideally this 3 pillars approach is reflected in the organisations that deal with military UAS, and I will zoom in again on this issue..

Tiers in military aviation functions Aeronautics & Certification Operations ATM Regulation & Oversight Ministry of Defence Military Aviation Authority organisations and regulators e.g., MAAs, FLYGI, DGA (authority role), ADRP, EMAAG… Military material and procurement organisations e.g. DMO, DPA, DGA, FMV, OCCAR… Military operators, maintainers, trainers e.g. Air Forces, Navies, Armies etc…. Acquisition The military aviation authority function we can be divided in three main areas of interest: aeronautics and certification, operations and ATM covering all aspects of military aviation. An authority – where ever positioned and organised in the (national) MOD organisations - regulates all ‘higher’ functions from a aviation safety point of view. Typically standards are set for certification, licensing, approval etc. Operation ‘Military Aviation Authority’

Tiers in military aviation functions Military Aviation Authorities will have to tune with their civil counterparts (e.g. EU, EASA, Eurocontrol) to meet legal objectives and law. Military aviation regulations shall meet or shall have due regard for (the objectives of) (international) (aviation) law Regulatory Co-ordination Aeronautics & Certification Operations ATM Regulatory Co-ordination Regulation & Oversight Ministry of Defence Military aviation products have to meet both operational requirements and aviation regulations Acquisition e.g. Type certification Looking at the acquisition function, the organisations active in this area will buy aviation systems (products) based on …CLICK.. operational needs. Their aim is to meet operational requirements for the lowest price, buying the best product. The assets that are to be bought need to cleared to enter national airspace, hence the quest to have a type certification …CLICK… that makes life so much easier for the aviation authorities who will allow the use of the aircraft and the related other elements. However, the ‘freedom’ of military aviation authorities is limited by the existence or a regulatory framework for military aviation. Therefore a constraint for acquisitions is that the products meet aviation requirements (regulations). These regulations …CLICK… are developed in the third function under the responsibility of authorities. Operation e.g. Operational use Material Organisations have to tune with their operators and aviation authorities ‘Military Aviation Authority’

Mixing functions are inherently not accepted as they might introduce diametrically opposed aims. Moreover acquisitions are nationally oriented (focussing on the sovereign build up of military (air) power), whereas regulations and oversight are internationally oriented (focussing on integration of the military air systems within the total aviation system from a safety point of view). During acquisition material organisations therefore will have to tune with their operators and aviation authorities to meet both operational requirements and aviation regulations. Based on their regulation and oversight function ….CLICK…. Military Aviation Authorities will have to ‘tune’ with their civil peers to meet legal objectives and law (focussed on aviation). This is needed because (even) the military has to have due regard as far as practicable to either the objectives of (international) law or is even obliged to comply with (international) law. Of course, EDA would preferably like to see any development related to regulations to be as (EU) common as possible, covering the total aviation approach and endorsed by (aviation authority) organisations within the regulation and oversight function.

Military Aviation Safety requires…. Difficult to track how coordination between functionalities is done From an military point of view aviation safety requires a co-ordinated approach on (typically): Certification Operation Airspace usage Difficult to determine how these functionalities are integrated into an aviation safety framework So we have a clear idea of areas that need to be covered by the relevant authorities, where- and however organised.... Reality in most nations however is that …CLICK…. it is difficult to track how coordination between the functionalities is done …CLICK… furthermore it is difficult to determine how these functinalities are integrated into an aviation safety framework… and finally ..CLICK… military aviation authorities us e well developed national safety framework, but they are all different by historical reasons, and a common EU/NATO wide approach is lacking. With respect to aircraft this means that every nation will have to repeat the process of type certification, design organisation approval, compliance control etc. for the acquisition of a similar aircraft… That is why the EDA already asked several responsible authorities 1. Can you create a military aviation safety framework that is acceptable for both military and civil authorities 2. Is harmonisation of current organisations, procedures and requirements possible towards such a common framework? 3. Are the proposals and studies of EUROCAE, OCCAR, EASA, NATO etc acceptable for the MA’s ‘military aviation authorities’ use a coherent national safety framework for the military aviation but there is no common EU/NATO wide approach

Incidentally, the charting exercise came up with a nice result Incidentally, the charting exercise came up with a nice result.. The chosen approach allowed us to link all the mentioned activities discussed this morning to specific areas of the picture and proved to us that there were hardly any overlaps in the work although one would assume that all the working groups would be addressing the same issues.. For instance: Several nations have regulations on airworthiness. This typically specifies what requirements should be met to declare a system safe to fly (certification). ETAP, OCCAR and EUROCAE are currently working on this level. Further NATO FINAS has issued a STANAG-4671 on UAV system Airworthiness Requirements (adapted from the FR USAR document). Only FINAS is working on requirements for continued airworthiness. Recently a manual for Designated UAV Operators (DUO) has been proposed for ratification. Some nations already have implemented EASA compliant regulations and requirements, while others have national agreed regulations and requirements. EUROCONTROL has proposed ATM requirements that would allow access of UAVs to non-segregated airspace. So even if the activities sound as they are covering the same ground, this picture shows you that they are not overlapping.. WHAT NOW ABOUT THE LINK BETWEEN THE MILITARY AND EASA ???

Current situation: EASA versus “the Military” Military aviation regulations shall meet or shall have due regard for (the objectives of) (international) (aviation) law Military Aviation organisations Civil Aviation Authorities Currently this is the situation… as owners and operators of state aircraft, the MODs only need to have due regard to civil issues.. There are sufficient possibilities to fly these state aircraft in the current regime.. This will however be influenced by initiatives like the Single European Skies. CLICK

Where could it go? “EMASA” Step 3: A European military forum liaison Step 4: Civil/military liaison cell We have discussed with a large number of organisations and the majority agrees that the links need to be enforced.. There are basically some steps required to streamline the discussions en activities… These steps are: CLICK First of all the military organisations need to create a transparent grouping to properly reflect their responsibilities and evolve into a military aviation authority. Secondly we need to harmonise the views and approaches in a wider European approach To enable that we need a European forum for these authorities. The EMAAG initiative is a perfect example of how this could be done, too bad it not sufficiently supported. Finally, to ensure that both civil and military requirements are properly met we need some kind of liaison between these now separated worlds. This would allow the EASA to properly design future regulations to fully meet the European goals as formulated in the European Parliaments Common Foreign and Security Policy. EASA can not remain fully civil oriented, but needs to view regulatory issues also from a security perspective…. If EASA succeeds in this step and demonstrates that it can and will respect both civil and “security forces” issues, the final step could be made…. CLICK… Step 2: harmonised views and approaches Step 1: Military Aviation Authorities

Joint Civil- and “Security Forces” Aviation Authorities (JAA?) Ultimate goal? “EMASA” Were we could see a joint European Aviation Safety Agency capable of handling the full spectrum of user requirements…. I will now conclude my briefing … Joint Civil- and “Security Forces” Aviation Authorities (JAA?)

Conclusions EDA is focusing on: EDA suggests that: EDA encourages: Addressing the challenges to achieve UAV traffic insertion Encouraging more and intensified cooperation between industries and governments to create a viable aeronautical industrial base Encouraging military aviation organisations to harmonize views and approaches and collaborate more and better EDA suggests that: EASA should take the lead in tackling the regulatory issues around UAVs and traffic insertion EASA should try to involve military authorities in the regulatory process to enable “state” use of UAVs EUROCONTROL should remain involved in EUROCAE, FINAS and the EDA traffic insertion study EDA encourages: Military aviation organisations to evolve in recognisable, transparent military aviation authorities Military Aviation Authorities to intensify the sharing of experiences and views Military Aviation Authorities to work on harmonisation of regulations and procedures on a European scale in line with European ambitions

QUESTIONS ?? Thank you for your time and attention, and I am open to any questions that you might have…