UAVs are coming!
By Bob Kirkby, COPA Chairman Does that conjure up images of swarms of little unmanned aircraft flitting to and fro across the landscape? If not, perhaps it should. Called by various names like Unmanned Aircraft, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), Unmanned Vehicle Systems (UVS), or Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), UAVs are no longer futuristic robotic devices portrayed on the Jetsons or Star Trek. They are becoming a reality. Although companies involved in their development and production prefer the term Unmanned Vehicle Systems, to encompass ground, air and sea varieties, it is the aerial version which is of concern to aviators, or should be. There are currently well over 100 such aircraft on the market from companies in over 35 countries. You may be familiar with some of the UAVs currently seeing military action from media coverage of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Names such as Predator, Global Hawk, Fire Scout are reflective of their military role. Although most UAV designers and manufacturers hope for a military uptake of their products, in reality only a few will see military action. The rest are targeting a growing demand for unmanned aerial vehicles in civilian use. That means in civilian airspace. Some of these commercial applications include pipeline and powerline patrol, police surveillance, border patrol, aerial photography, monitoring agricultural harvest areas, monitoring marine fisheries, cargo delivery, geophysical exploration, traffic monitoring, disaster monitoring and control, law enforcement, etc. The applications are only limited by one’s imagination. With today’s sophisticated data link capability and GPS’s positioning accuracy visual reference between the aircraft, its target and the ground-based operator is unnecessary. On the surface this sounds like we can look forward to some very exciting developments. But the question is, “How do UAVs integrate into our civilian airspace without reducing the safety of current airspace users?” Let’s see what the CARs say about how UAVs are regulated. First, section 101.01 states, “Unmanned Air Vehicle” means a power driven aircraft, other than a model aircraft, that is operated without a flight crew member on board. Section 602.41 of the CARs states, no person shall operate an unmanned air vehicle in flight except in accordance with a Special Flight Operation Certificate (SFOC). That’s it for regulations! In other words, you just can’t do it without an SFOC. A Special Flight Operation Certificate is issued by Transport for unusual events and flights that are not clearly covered by existing regulations and may require special conditions, such as an air show. By digging further we discovered there is a document called a Staff Instruction for the Review and Processing of an Application for an SFOC for the Operation of an Unmanned Air Vehicle. This is a 22-page document covering everything you might want to know to get an SFOC to fly your UAV. There is one very key statement buried in the middle of this document: “In order to integrate with other airspace users, the Certificate holder must ensure that their operation show an equivalent level of compliance with the rules and procedures that apply to manned aircraft.” This seems to make sense. If a UAV is flying under Visual Flight Rules it must be able to comply with all the rules the manned aircraft is required to comply with. Here are some examples:
For IFR flight the level of capability increases in all areas and so must the capability of the unmanned aerial vehicle system (including the operator). So one would assume that our regulators are adequately looking after our safety. This is not necessarily the case. The UAV industry around the world is pushing very hard for “easy” access to civilian airspace. Similarly regulators around the world are scrambling to find ways to deal with these demands. In the U.S. the FAA takes a similar position to our CARs. However, they are being pressured by all levels of government to open the skies to UAVs. For example, in January the FAA was pressured into issuing a 340 nm long by 15 nm wide TFR along the U.S.-Mexican border so the Customer and Border Protection agency could fly UAVs at night without having to worry about colliding with other aircraft. This restriction was granted for 12 months at a time. Ironically they lifted the restriction recently when the multi-million dollar UAV went out of control and crashed. In Canada we have UAVs flying under SFOCs which we don’t even know about until we see a NOTAM, and not all such operations are covered by NOTAMS. In Newfoundland we have UAVs flying some form of fishery surveillance. In Ontario we have mining companies flying UAVs. On the Prairies we have farmers flying aerial photography UAVs for crop monitoring. These are just a few we know about. Are they all flying with an equivalent level of compliance with the rules and procedures that apply to manned aircraft? That’s a hard one to answer. The SFOC documents themselves are not available to the public (e.g. COPA). Competition within the industry makes the companies involved very sensitive about anyone knowing what they are up to and the government likes to protect that. There is also an increasing demand from the UVS industry to have access to airspace for testing purposes. A substantial amount of development is required before UAV’s have the capabilities to properly integrate with manned aircraft. Such development requires test facilities and test ranges. The only available test ranges at present are military ranges, which our military seems very willing to make available. However, the two locations the military wants to see used are the restricted weapons test ranges at Goose Bay and the Cold Lake. These are sparse northern areas well suited for such work since they are already restricted and cause little disruption to civil aviation. Unfortunately the industry players wanted some place more hospitable and with more airport facilities. Recently the Alberta Department of Economic Development and Aviation Alberta proposed a 600 mile test corridor along the Alberta/Saskatchewan border linking the Suffield, Wainwright and Cold Lake restricted areas. They went so far as to begin advertising this to the UVS community worldwide. COPA met with them on several occasions and tried to convince them this was not a good idea and would lead to random temporary flight restrictions which would pose a significant risk and disruption to General Aviation. They have backed off slightly on the corridor proposal but still want to do some testing in the area under SFOCs. COPA will continue to monitor this situation. There are two organizations strongly promoting the UVS industry in Canada, Aviation Alberta and UVS Canada. Fundamental to their efforts is to find a way for their members to gain access to the civilian airspace. It is imperative that this process be closely monitored and controlled by Transport Canada. COPA will be working with all organizations involved to insure that aviation safety is not compromised as these developments unfold. COPA’s position is that UAVs must comply with existing rules and regulations before they can integrate with current traffic. This includes but is not limited to the “see and avoid” axiom of VFR flight. COPA is also opposed to additional restricted airspace and roving restricted air space to accommodate UAV operations. This is not just a COPA concern. IAOPA and ICAO are seriously reviewing how to respond to these developments worldwide. There is general agreement that UAVs must not integrate in civilian airspace until the industry has developed effective and reliable equipment to meet the current airspace safety regulations. This will require some form of certification regulations yet to come. Watch for future articles and news on developments within the UVS industry and UAV activity in civilian airspace. We’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg!
|
|
|