Revised transcript of evidence taken before

The Select Committee on the European Union

Internal Market, Infrastructure and Employment (Sub‑Committee B)

Inquiry on

civil use of remotely piloted

aircraft systems (rpaS)

Evidence Session No. 1               Heard in Public               Questions 1 - 12

Monday 13 october 2014

4.20 pm

Witnesses: Adam Simmons, Paul Cremin and Andrew Horton

Members present

Baroness O’Cathain (Chairman)

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe

Lord Fearn

Lord Haskel

Baroness Hooper

Lord Kakkar

Earl of Liverpool

Baroness Valentine

Lord Wilson of Tillyorn

________________

Examination of Witnesses

Adam Simmons, Deputy Director, International Aviation Safety & Environment, Department for Transport, Paul Cremin, Head of UK Aviation Safety, SAFA & Permits Branch, Department for Transport, and Andrew Horton, Senior Technical Policy Adviser, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

Q1   The Chairman: Welcome, Mr Simmons, Mr Cremin and Mr Horton. Thank you very much for giving up your time. I hope you might even benefit a little from our questioning—we will certainly benefit a lot. Before taking evidence, I have to ask the members of the Committee if they have any interests that should be declared. No? Okay. A transcript of this meeting is being taken. It will be sent to you for any changes and corrections and it will be published on the website.

On behalf of the specialist adviser, I declare that Anthony Henley knows two of today’s witnesses, Mr Cremin and Mr Horton, as they are both members of the Royal Aeronautical Society’s UAS specialist group, which he chairs.

If there are questions that cannot be covered in the time available, it might be useful if you could send us written answers or replies. Similarly, if the discussion raises other issues in your mind which you do not actually talk about, perhaps you could jot something down. Any bit of evidence will be important to us, because we have to weigh it all up. Let us get on with the questions. Would you like to say who you are for the benefit of the transcript?

Adam Simmons: Good afternoon everyone. I am Adam Simmons. I am deputy director at the Department for Transport and head of the international aviation safety and environment team.

Paul Cremin: Good afternoon. I am Paul Cremin. I am head of safety at the Department for Transport and chairman of the government working group on RPAS.

Andrew Horton: Good afternoon. I am Andrew Horton. I am a senior technical adviser with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills export control organisation. I lead for the UK and head the delegation to the MTCR[1] for the technical experts meetings.

The Chairman: But you liaise with the Department for Transport.

Andrew Horton: Yes.

The Chairman: Why is there that distinction?

Andrew Horton: The export control organisation within BIS[2] is responsible for UK strategic exports, so we deal with the export control side.

The Chairman: I see. Thank you very much indeed. You have had a list of questions. There might be some stings in the tail with some of them, although I hope not. The first one will be asked by Lord Haskel.

Q2   Lord Haskel: This Committee is concerned with Europe and the European Union. According to the Commission’s communication of April this year, “National authorizations do not benefit from mutual recognition and do not allow for European wide activities, either to produce or to operate RPAS”.  Obviously, that means that they cannot cross European boundaries. How do you think the situation can be resolved?

Adam Simmons: Perhaps I can start, and I am sure my colleagues will add anything. I think we would agree with the statement. In the absence of there being European rules on this, individual states have developed their own rules and guidance. It is helpful that the European Commission is thinking about introducing that. I would say that the JARUS[3] project is a good way of getting good communication between states, not only in Europe but internationally. I am sure there will be some questions later about JARUS and how that might be improved, but it is a good structure and organisation to have in place.

I would comment on one theme that I am sure we will come back to. While we think it is sensible for Europe to be thinking about some common rules and a common approach, it is about getting that balance right and not overregulating and stifling what is a growing industry, particularly for the lighter remotely piloted aircraft systems. It is going in the right direction, but it is about doing it in an appropriate way. Paul, was there anything you wanted to add to that?

Paul Cremin: I would add that it is right to say that nationals have grown up—if you look at how regulation has grown up, the UK has done quite well. It has taken a lead and been very forward looking in the development of regulation for unmanned systems. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is highly regarded in Europe and is seen as a benchmark among European regulators for how that comes together. But it is correct to say that the regulators across Europe have grown at a different pace, depending on how the market has emerged in those countries. It is also fair to say that the market has probably not materialised as fast as industry had initially anticipated, partly because of the lack of regulatory oversight and legal framework, but it is ongoing. There are obviously benefits from widening up regulation to make sure it is consistent, which is the way all other aviation regulation is going at the moment, and it is important to have common rules. The UK is very much influencing how those rules are being developed to make sure that the UK is not disadvantaged as a result of that regulation. The UK’s regulations put the UK in a very good place for that to go forward.

The other thing I would say, about the emerging technology itself, is that we are maturing a number of technologies that still need to evolve. It is quite right that industry is seeking some common standards to help it to evolve that technology, but it is a chicken and egg situation in that regulators at the moment are telling industry, “You develop the technology and we will evolve the regulations around the technology”. But of course commercial companies are a bit more risk averse than that: they will not commit to developing those technologies until such time as the regulatory standards are in place. We are in a bit of a dancing circle, as we say, at the moment. It is quite important that we give a clear message to industry if this is going to go forward. But as we go forward, it is important that we have common standards—personally, from a UK perspective, more so at the higher end than the lower end. Some of the operations from the UK at the lower end would be challenged to fly across borders, but that does not mean that they cannot operate from within the European market or establish a commercial foothold in those markets.

Lord Haskel: If the lack of regulation is holding back development, as you seem to imply, why can we not in the interim say, “Well, we’ll apply the rules on small aircraft”, or something like that? Then at least we can make progress and get on with developing the industry.

Adam Simmons: I think I understand the principle that you suggest. In one sense, there is the expectation that RPAS really should be treated in a very similar way to aircraft, while recognising that it is a different technology and that there are a number of issues to work through. A number of issues were identified by the European Commission, and others that need to be resolved, about the very different nature of how these aircraft are piloted and seeking reassurance before we fully integrate them into the same operations or apply the same rules as regular aircraft. Certainly that aspiration is there, but there are a lot of steps to work through.

Paul Cremin: One of the key things is trying to work out an equivalent level of safety between manned and unmanned systems. This debate has been going on for quite some time: what happens when you remove the pilot from the cockpit, and how safe it is compared with manned aviation. Certainly from within the Department for Transport we have been trying to encourage industry to take a proactive role and support activity so that we can challenge the regulators by putting systems in the air in the same conditional way that we employed with manned aircraft. The problem that we currently have comes back to companies being risk averse at the moment and the lack of commercial appetite to invest in programmes that they do not know at the end of the day will pass the regulatory test. As I said, we go round in a spiral. I heed your point that we should just tell them and perhaps see where we go, but it is far more complex than that, I fear.

Lord Haskel: What are the sanctions if you fly your RPAS across a European frontier?

Paul Cremin: The challenge at the moment is probably that not many systems are capable of doing it.

The Chairman: Watch this space. Baroness Hooper wants to ask a question.

Q3   Baroness Hooper: Not across the Channel, I imagine, anyway. My question is: is any other European country more advanced than we are in this, or more advanced than all the others? In other words, is whichever country in this position likely to provide the model for what we will eventually get?

Adam Simmons: My initial answer is that the UK is genuinely leading on this work, but Paul will give you a better flavour of the capabilities of other countries.

Baroness Hooper: So we might provide a model eventually?

Paul Cremin: I would hope so. The model for which the regulatory framework comes out will come through the extensive R&D[4] framework that is flying from Europe at the moment, because that will give us the opportunity to test those boundaries. Other states are also doing a lot of stuff in this area in Europe: Spain, which is particularly active, Switzerland, France, and Germany. There is huge potential in this. I think the UK holds its own; I think it is leading things. The bigger market share is probably coming from the US and Israel at the moment.

The Chairman: Yes, we have been told that before. Before I move on to the next question, another question suddenly dawned on me when you were answering that one: can you learn anything from the way satellites were introduced 30, 40 or 50 years ago? Institutions such as the University of Guildford have all these satellites up there. Is there anything to be learnt? Is there a crossover of information, or indeed of experience of flying things in the sky that could kill people on the ground?

Andrew Horton: I think there is a fundamental difference between putting an object into space, where there is a lot of space, and operating an air vehicle in unsegregated airspace.

The Chairman: At 1,000 feet or something.

Andrew Horton: Passenger airlines are an example. There is very much a safety issue there.

The Chairman: Can supplementary questions be very brief, because we are going to run out of time?

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: You can write to us afterwards if you need to. Can you say what is happening in China, South Korea and Japan?

Baroness Valentine: Do driverless cars have parallels to what you are talking about?

Paul Cremin: They are on the ground, so they are a lot safer.

The Chairman: Perhaps you could send any further thoughts you have about that to the Committee.

Q4   Lord Fearn: The Government’s Explanatory Memorandum says that the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS) could be a more appropriate forum to develop regulations for RPAS under 150 kilograms. Why is that so?

Adam Simmons: There are three points to raise in answer to that question. For me, JARUS as a consortium that has been set up across a range of national airworthiness authorities is well established and has been considering these issues for a number of years now.

The second point for me is that the forum is not just in Europe. It is not constrained in that way. It is a global consortium. It is not just European, it is international. That enables us to share experience, as Paul set out. A range of countries have experience in this area, particularly with lighter aircraft. They are developing the aircraft and their uses, and it is very valuable to have that forum to discuss the lessons that they have learnt from their experiences.

The third thing that I think could be done better within JARUS, although there is industry involvement, is the link from the JARUS consortium back to industry. There could be improvements in those communications, in ensuring that there is more sharing when it comes to how the manufacturers are developing their products and how they are used, and in feeding into some of their considerations from JARUS.

Those are my three points in answer to that question.

The Chairman: My I interrupt? I have been requested to ask if you could speak up a little. You are a very gentle gentleman, but some of us do not have great hearing, so if you could, that would be very useful. Thank you. Are there any more comments on that question?

Paul Cremin: I would just add that JARUS is effective. It has its faults. It is not perfect by any means. It is exactly as Adam said: it has in it a number of the leading experts in regulatory authorities across the world; its challenge is how it becomes more transparent in what it is doing, particularly in how it engages with industry at the moment. It can do a lot better. The EASA, the European Aviation Safety Agency, now recognises the importance of JARUS and is looking to—take over is too strong a word: it now chairs it. It is something that we as a department are watching very closely, because obviously there is a competitive action there, but the fact that the EASA is engaged with JARUS is probably a good thing.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: I apologise if I missed it in the briefing, but I do not know much about JARUS. What is its origin, who runs it, who is involved with it, and who pays for it?

Paul Cremin: JARUS is a consortium of national airworthiness authorities, both EU and international. It has for a number of years been developing the requirements considered appropriate for RPAS-based regulation that is based on the collaboration of the member states. It is made up of what, in a sense, are civil aviation authorities coming together in a consortium. For the UK, the Department for Transport supports the CAA’s attendance at JARUS. As for other states’ representatives, my understanding is that they fund their attendance, which is free. The challenge with JARUS is that it is almost like voluntary attendance and could probably be more effective, so managing times and priorities is a key issue for JARUS. Getting the right people in the room at the same time also remains incredibly difficult. It does not meet as regularly as we would like, but it is probably the only vehicle that has been recognised as being capable of doing the job at this stage. If you would like, Lord Chairman, we can provide additional briefing on JARUS.

The Chairman: That would be very useful. I was going to ask you what you would like JARUS to be and how we get there.

Paul Cremin: That is a big question.

The Chairman: We have to ask all these questions.

Q5   Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: Can you help us on whether what the EU is either doing or might do is consistent with what is being done in non-EU countries—I suppose the United States and Israel have been quoted as the main players in this—or with international organisations such as the ICAO?[5]

Adam Simmons: I feel that almost every answer will to an extent include a reference to JARUS. I do think that what has been done in Europe is consistent with what has been done in the ICAO. We have talked about this and we will provide some more information about exactly how JARUS works and how it can help to get the collaboration that is needed between the different states that are currently working on this. I understand that there is an ICAO RPAS study group in place, which is shortly to become just the RPAS panel. My experience of some of these international groups is that you will probably see familiar faces sitting in both. That can be a strength, as it ensures a consistency of approach between the different groups and panels that are set up.

We recognise that there is perhaps a difference in maturity in where different states are. Some states have more established regulations while others are more immature. Indeed, others share a different route map or vision. The FAA[6] has an extremely ambitious route map, even more so than Europe. However, we still think that the European vision is quite ambitious in terms of integrating it into airspace. We believe that the FAA’s views are more challenging. We do think that these groups allow for a consistency of approach and sharing of information between them, so I do not think there is a concern that there is a disconnect between the ICAO and what we are doing in Europe.

Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: Are the United States and non-EU countries encompassed within ICAO?

Paul Cremin: The ICAO panel is a global panel on which the United States sits, and in fact it would argue itself that it is very influential within it. The good news, certainly from the Americans’ perspective, is that while there is the odd difference we are moving in the same direction. Perhaps the best way to describe it is that there are differences in how we come to the same place. The FAA, NASA[7] and the Royal Aeronautical Society are very keen and the department is working closely with those organisations to see how we can collaborate and to look at the integration issue. In particular, we are looking at how we in the UK can use the US to promote the UK’s aims in this area. Israel has recently approached the department and is looking at how to regulate unmanned aircraft systems within the country. It is turning to the UK to see how best to do that, which is quite reassuring. It is a very different environment in Israel than is the case in most places. The environment in which it operates is challenging and it is a very different type of arrangement from what we have the UK. We will see where that goes, but it is quite reassuring that people are coming to the UK for our expertise. We are able to export that expertise and exercise influence on the world stage.

The Chairman: That is interesting. Lord Liverpool wants a brief word on this.

Earl of Liverpool: The Honourable Company of Air Pilots has written to us stating that it feels that the EU should ensure that EASA seeks to match RPAS regulatory developments by the FAA to the greatest extent possible. I think you have been saying that you are working carefully with the FAA, but would you agree with that statement?

Paul Cremin: To as great an extent as is possible we are working as closely as we can. Differences emerge even within the national airspace system in the US. We are talking about different degrees of complexity, because the US has vast amounts of space in which to operate unmanned systems, and therefore the challenges are sometimes very different from those in Europe. But we are, to all intents and purposes, working towards the same goal. We are looking in Europe to work out how we integrate unmanned systems through our future air traffic system—SESAR[8]. The Americans are doing the same through their future air traffic system, which is NextGen. Both sides are talking to each other about how to collaborate as effectively as possible. It is not always easy, but I am sure that we will get there in the end.

Q6   The Chairman: Thank you. Could the UK’s existing obligations under various international treaties, such as the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), hinder its ability to develop and deploy UAVs in the future and create a distortion in the single market? I ask because this Committee also has responsibility for the single market, along with infrastructure and employment.

Andrew Horton: I think this is one for me. Just to clarify the issue, two regimes are involved in the control of RPAS. They are not treaties so they are not legally binding internationally; they are arrangements. There is what is termed the Wassenaar Arrangement, which controls conventional arms and related dual-use technology, and there is the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). The Wassenaar Arrangement controls virtually all RPAS systems, both military and dual use, with the exception of small recreational systems. The Missile Technology Control Regime controls only RPAS with a range of 300 kilometres or more, but the MTCR is often talked about with respect to RPAS because it has what are called Category I systems, which are systems that are capable of carrying a 500-kilogram or greater payload over a 300-kilometre or greater range. Within the MTCR there is what is a “strong presumption of denial” when it comes to the export of these systems. Basically, we have agreed that we would not export systems that are aimed at or potentially could be used for the delivery of WMDs. That is the underlying rationale in respect of the MTCR. In terms of whether this creates a distortion in the single market, the simple answer could be yes, but it must be borne in mind that Category I of the MTCR applies to around 5% of all RPAS systems. We are talking about only a small number of potential systems. However, as the technology matures and we see more of the larger systems, the situation is likely to change. There is, as I say, the potential for distortion of the single market because the assumption of denial applies equally to other member states within the European Union.

Lord Haskel: Is there any distinction between military and civilian use, or are they all regarded as dual use?

Andrew Horton: Within the MTCR no distinction is made, but within the Wassenaar Arrangement we have what they term the munitions list or, in the UK, the military list. It covers systems that are specially designed for or modified for military use. Everything else that is controlled is a dual-use item.

In terms of the strong assumption of denial, if there is an international treaty or other agreement that predates the MTCR, a grandfather clause allows for the export of, for example, military systems between the UK and the US because we are members of NATO. Where there is no pre-existing agreement, that is where we can run into difficulties with this strong assumption of denial for Category I systems.

The Chairman: Would you expect the EU to lead on this?

Andrew Horton: At the moment, because these regimes are national competency and the Commission has no responsibility for the regimes, it is up to the member states.

The Chairman: Would you prefer that? Do not answer that question if you do not want to. It is not a trick question at all actually.

Andrew Horton: Member States have resisted the Commission’s attempts to—to creep into this area. However, when it comes to dual-use items, there is the EU dual-use list, so a civilian RPAS that has a range below the 300-kilometre range and is therefore not MTCR listed can be exported to another member state without an export licence. Inter-community transfers are possible, but when it comes to the slightly more military systems and longer-range systems, there are concerns and we cannot export.

The Chairman: So we want to stick with it?

Andrew Horton: We do, yes.

Q7   Baroness Hooper: Does the fact that some of these systems can be purchased for a few hundred pounds and are very lightweight and portable poses an additional security risk in this country and other EU countries?

Andrew Horton: The control under the Wassenaar Arrangement actually controlled a lot of the higher-end recreational systems. My colleague who deals with the Wassenaar Arrangement informed me that they are working on a decontrol that is based on the performance characteristics of these systems. So the intent is to decontrol the higher-end recreational systems but to maintain control on systems that represent the greatest risk for potential security issues.

Adam Simmons: It is worth me adding—this is going to be a very short answer, I am afraid—that the Government consider threats to aviation security as a whole, in the round, and this will include RPAS. Of course, it is government policy not to comment on individual threats other than the threat to the UK from international terrorism, which is set as severe overall. I probably could not get into a lot more detail about any specific threats that may be represented by RPAS.

The Chairman: We quite understand.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: I made a note earlier of “small recreational systems”. Do you define those by weight? You are decontrolling something and I do not know what you are decontrolling.

Andrew Horton: The Wassenaar Arrangement is looking at decontrolling, which is a proposal that has come from our Australian colleagues. There have been months and years of debate based around how you define systems that you are decontrolling, and there are some complex proposals on the table with reference to things such as flight endurance, stability, resistance to gusts and so forth. It is a very technical area. I have not seen the full proposals from the Wassenaar Arrangement, but that is agreed by consensus. Forty-one countries have agreed that there needs to be some decontrol for these smaller systems.

The Chairman: It would be very useful if you could send us more information on the two types of agreement so that we can look at them.

Andrew Horton: Certainly, yes.

Q8   Earl of Liverpool: You touched on this in your answer to a subsidiary question from Lord Haskel earlier, but I wonder if you could tell us what your view is of the concerns expressed by some stakeholders about a blurring between the military and the civil use of RPAS, particularly in the area of law enforcement.

Adam Simmons: For me, there are two sides to this. Of course, there is the obvious weapons element in the military use of RPAS. Certainly there is no question of weaponising any use in a civilian sense. Indeed, there are regulations in place that prevent that. To get the right order here, Article 129 of the Air Navigation Order[9] prohibits the dropping of “articles and animals” in a manner that would “endanger persons or property”. There are regulations there that directly address the use of civilian RPAS to try to endanger or hurt somebody. Secondly, I understand that part of military use is surveillance, and that could be a question certainly for some of the use by law enforcement agencies. But, again, the technology itself is perhaps not the issue there; the issue is about making sure that the right legislation is in place to control how surveillance is gathered and how data and personal privacy issues are protected. We believe that that legislation is already there, or is certainly being reviewed, separately from RPAS, so it is perhaps less of an RPAS issue. In thinking about this question, we were not quite sure where the concern was about the blurring between military and civilian. I hope that answers your question.

Earl of Liverpool: Currently the classification in member states between civilian and military use is classified differently. Obviously, if we are going to be writing a report on this, it would be nice to be able to say whether that should be somehow clarified.

Adam Simmons: I understand.

Paul Cremin: Most of the military use of RPAS at the moment is constrained to operating overseas in theatre, where we are operating under different rules and in a completely different environment. I will not go into any of the operational aspects of that today. With regard to the civil aspect, a number of potential civilian applications are foreseen for this. In fact, I hear of a new one almost every day. People are becoming resourceful. When the internet first came on the scene, people looked at different ways of using that technology, and we are now seeing that with RPAS. The resourcefulness of entrepreneurial people to think about how people gather information or data in different ways is quite astonishing. As Adam quite rightly alluded to, the important thing is to make sure that we understand the boundaries within which those operations can take place and that there are sufficient controls to assure and reassure the general public. As it stands at the moment, those operations are constrained to what we call segregated airspace, so they are in operations that are specific to the task that they are looking to do. They are not, I would argue, in the area where there may be some blurring. The police have experimented and are experimenting with RPAS, it is fair to say, and I am sure that as we go further forward in time that will be increasingly likely. Again, we come back to the key thing of making sure that there is enough reassurance and—I am sure we will cover this later—that there are sufficient safeguards in place so that the data that we are collecting are collated and collected in a proper and, quite rightly, controlled way that both promotes the sectors that the industry is looking to develop and, equally, protects the public at large.

Andrew Horton: From an export control point of view, if it has been specially designed or modified for military use, it is definitely military, but we also control the dual-use items. A lot of that is based on the flight characteristics, such as whether it has autonomous capability or beyond visual line of sight capability. Those are the systems that we view as being very capable systems and not too dissimilar from military systems.

Q9   Lord Kakkar: I want to reflect on the whole question of detect and avoid systems[10], which I understand are a prerequisite for the safe use of these remotely piloted aircraft systems in unsegregated airspace[11]. I would like to ask you two questions. First, do you consider it a prerequisite to have such a system in place before these devices are allowed to move around all airspace? Secondly, how close are we to having them?

Paul Cremin: It depends on the airspace you are operating in. You can operate in unsegregated airspace. I do not think we understand fully the areas in which you would almost certainly need a detect and avoid system. If you are flying in class A airspace, which is what we call ordinary airline airways, your separation from other traffic is provided to a large extent by air traffic control. So there may in some circumstances be some thought of saying, “Yes, you may need it”, but the extent to which you rely on it may be different from the extent to which you rely on it in what we call class G airspace, which is not controlled airspace: you are not being controlled as much by air traffic control and you have lots of different types of aviation stakeholders flying around, such as general aviation and military jets. The extent to which you rely on it will be dependent on how complex the airspace you are operating in is. I do not think that argument has yet been fully made either way.

In terms of the certification of UAS[12], it is true that detect and avoid is an important system, but actually there are lots of important systems that require significant work to make these things acceptable in uncontrolled airspace, not least secure communications, which, ultimately, I am led to believe, will be slightly harder to achieve than detect and avoid.

Coming back to your second question, the Department for Business is supporting a programme called ASTRAEA[13], which is made up of a consortium of UK national industry partners such as BAE Systems, QinetiQ, Thales, Rolls-Royce—the big aerospace companies—and they are developing key technologies that will push the boundaries of the integration aspects and the technology that is required to do that. I am led to believe that the UK has demonstrated some of those technologies through that programme, which places the UK very much at the leading edge of the development of those technologies. However, as I mentioned earlier, it is anticipated that the degree to which you rely on detect and avoid will depend on the challenge of the airspace that you want to fly in. But based on the work that ASTRAEA has pushed out, it is a difficult question because detect and avoid is still an emerging technology and you have to go through the robust testing of such a system. Not only do you have to evolve it and test the practical application of it, you then have to go through the full system-live demonstrations, as you would do in testing any other product. For instance, TCAS, which is a Traffic Collision Avoidance System in aircraft and which followed a very similar programme, took 10 years to develop. That is the kind of development that we are talking about here. We are working on the assumption that the regulator will evolve the regulations based on demonstration evidence, as I have just described, and it is further assumed that it will take two to five years to develop a production system capable of being certified against that evolved regulation. Realistically, you are looking at a potentially certified detect and avoid system in and around the 2023 timetable.

Lord Kakkar: If I may come back on that, in broad aviation safety terms, is there a risk that having these remote piloted systems operating by accident in bits of airspace that they are not meant to operate in could threaten the safety of other aviation? If there is no detect and avoid system, which has clearly been a landmark development in broader aviation safety, does that mean that for other forms of aviation we are taking the whole safety question backwards by allowing these to be more broadly used?

Paul Cremin: Until such time as those systems can be demonstrated, RPAS or small systems are required to operate within segregated airspace away from other airspace users. It is not until such time as those technologies have been proven that they will be allowed to operate outside those systems. Yes, you are absolutely right: one of the precautions that we take is that at all times the pilot must be able to track his vehicle and tell us exactly where his vehicle is. Even within segregated airspace, the operator has to provide the Civil Aviation Authority with a safety case that demonstrates that he can track his vehicle—that he knows where his vehicle is—and that each time there is a failsafe mechanism that, should things go wrong, the aircraft can be safely brought down or whatever needs to be done with it to make it safe.

I mentioned earlier that some of the good work that is coming out of Europe at the moment is an extensive R&D[14] programme. There will be occasions when we want to trial aircraft in very closely monitored conditions that will, and have to, allow these aircraft to fly outside the box if we are to progress into an integrated airspace arrangement. They will be carefully controlled research programmes, where additional safety mechanisms will be put in place to do that, including the testing, because eventually you will have to test a detect and avoid system and presumably you will have to test it against some other targets that it may come up against. First of all, you would test that in a simulated environment until you felt safe to put that in an actual platform, and then you would test it in segregated airspace in very controlled circumstances and slowly widen the envelope.

The Chairman: Thank you. Perhaps you could send us a list of other important systems that also need to be developed, along with detect and avoid.

Paul Cremin: Other key technologies?

The Chairman: Yes, thank you.

Q10   Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: A friend of mine was 70 last week. He is a man who has most things. He got a box, opened it up and discovered that he has got himself a small recreation system that will fly. He had no idea what it was or how to use it. There is very little inside in the way of instructions about what he should not do with it, except that the friend who sent it to him said, “You can try to get a camera on it and start taking pictures in different places”. That leads me to my question. It has been suggested that the increased civil use of RPAS challenges current legislation regarding data protection and privacy, which relies on individuals being able to identify who is collecting their data. Do you agree that identifying who is operating an RPAS and for what purpose is problematic and is going to be very difficult indeed? Can you propose any solutions to this problem? Are we going to have some form of regulation on it as well in due course?

Adam Simmons: Your opening comment about your friend’s birthday present is quite right. You mentioned a camera that may be mounted on an RPAS system, which could collect data or information on people. Of course, the Data Protection Act has an obligation regarding how data are collected and used, and an obligation on the people collecting those data. Your story highlights the key issue, which is whether more can be done at the point of sale to inform people of their obligations under the various different pieces of legislation that govern particularly where data may be collected on others, through photography or what have you.

You asked about identifying the operator of an RPAS. As Paul set out earlier, currently where an RPAS is operating within segregated airspace there needs to be a link with the CAA to get permission to operate in that way. At the moment there is that relationship, but as this is integrated more into non-segregated airspace, that will become an issue. I do not know whether this issue has been picked up by the cross-Whitehall group.

Paul Cremin: There are two issues that this brings up. I chair a cross-government working group of cross-Whitehall civil servants who are tackling this very issue. It is a very live issue. Obviously the proliferation of small unmanned systems could be a success and is showing the demand for this type of activity. Equally, you are absolutely right: there is the issue of privacy and data protection, and all the other things.

The issue that you quite rightly identified is not so much the regulation; we believe that there is sufficient regulation out there. It is a behaviour issue initially; it is about how you inform the person who is buying these things. You can go into Maplins today and buy a fairly sophisticated system for about £500. The question, as you quite rightly say, is that when you get the box home, where, first of all, does it tell you that you are buying an aircraft, let alone anything else? These are aircraft. They are viewed in the Air Navigation Order as aircraft, and you have responsibilities under that order, but if I do not know that they are aircraft I do not know how to behave. This is a very real problem that we are aware of. The Civil Aviation Authority is, I understand, targeting key manufacturers at the moment to look at putting some sort of leaflet in the box to tell them: one, their responsibilities as a pilot of an aircraft and how to behave; and, two, how to act responsibly in respect of the data protection and privacy points.

This leads into a much wider question. This is clearly an emerging issue that will only get bigger, I suspect, as we go through. We will be talking to Ministers very soon, and the Minister might be able to say more when he gives evidence. The time is drawing near when we look to have some sort of public dialogue with the general public on the use of RPAS and what they think. I think the time is right and that we will see an explosion of that. We are engaging through BIS with a programme called Sciencewise. We are looking to have key debates across the country on this, and we will put key questions to them.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: Can you comment on what has happened in America, where there has been a widespread explosion in the use of the small ones and a very strong reaction in certain sections of the public, to such an extent that it has significantly slowed down development in the industry?

The Chairman: Perhaps you could write to us about that. The point that you have been dancing around is very important. I was horrified the other day when I was given a certain website to look at. I could see the roses in my garden. It was on a Google map or something, and I have no idea how it was taken. It was taken from up there. Obviously it was not a large aircraft, but this is happening. It did not fill me with a sense of security.

Paul Cremin: We have to be careful in the sense that a lot of what RPAS threatens to do and what it is doing today, such as gathering information, is currently being provided by manned aircraft and manned helicopters. Compared with what Google has been doing with its cars and so on and what it has attempted to do, RPAS will be far less intrusive. It is amazing, when you look at it, how much aerial work is conducted today in the UK and across Europe using manned aeroplanes. In terms of the environmental footprint and everything else, RPAS offers an alternative, and with the longer sustainable hours that it can operate and loiter for, the calibre of the information is often vastly superior. There are challenges, and we recognise those challenges, but we should not forget that manned aviation is carrying out a lot of surveillance today that could be provided by RPAS.

Andrew Horton: Another thing to add is that there are companies already providing high-definition video with space-based systems, so in the future, satellites equally could be looking down on you, not just RPAS, manned aircraft and helicopters. A whole range of emerging technologies are going to be out there.

The Chairman: Before we come to the last question, from Lady Valentine, I have just been asked by our specialist adviser how long it will take to develop regulations using JARUS, and how JARUS will clarify the different operations and types. I am not asking you to answer that now, but if you could take those questions on board and send us answers, that would be very helpful.

Paul Cremin: What I would say is that I understand that the Civil Aviation Authority will be giving evidence, and since it sits on JARUS the questions might more appropriately be put to it.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Q11   Baroness Valentine: What is your view of the EU’s consultation processes and stakeholder involvement so far?

Adam Simmons: For me, the consultation process is well proven. It is transparent. It is important that we have stakeholder engagement. That needs to be an integral part of the process. It does seem to enable many industry players to be involved. I recognise that there is a difficulty at times in encouraging different stakeholders to contribute. From the UK, we try to consolidate as many views as we can, but obviously there needs to be a process whereby we get full engagement. Overall, the consultation process works well, although I acknowledge that it is perhaps not a perfect way of getting absolutely everybody’s view.

Paul Cremin: This is an area that the EU is very keen to get right. With regard to RPAS, it has had far more consultation than it would normally do on a lot of other things that I have seen. It went through an extensive exercise: there were five stakeholder sessions, which went from about 2009 to about 2010 or 2011, and there was extensive industry participation. I was present at a couple of them and was surprised by how well attended they were from the industry’s perspective. What is also reassuring is that the industry is very engaged at all levels of the development process. There are some challenges within that, because you find companies that want to go at a different pace commercially from other companies. You have prime companies and small entrepreneurial companies; often the likes of BAE Systems and others can throw a lot of resources at something but are looking for something very different from an entrepreneurial company that wants something very quick, simple and low cost. It is a very difficult process, but there has been extensive engagement with industry and stakeholders. The EU seems to have put out another consultation, which is running today. I think we can be fairly satisfied that we will be consulted to death on this.

Q12   The Chairman: This has been an amazing session. We have learnt a huge amount. I thank you all, individually and collectively, for doing a fantastic job. It really was great, and was a great pleasure. Time has flown and you could see the way that everybody was participating; I had to keep them down. I always ask what question, if you were in my position, you would have asked that we did not ask, and what your answer would be to that question. In other words, is there some glaring omission that we have not covered that would impact on our long-term report?

Adam Simmons: We touched on this earlier with your question, Lord Brooke, which is the conversation that we have with the public. I am sure that the prices of these things will come down and the technology will develop. Where there are the conversations with the Googles, which may have some bigger systems, or with the bigger industries, and as the regulation develops and it is clearer how we will do things with them, I think we will get that. It will be more about how we have that conversation at the individual level. As Paul set out, part of the answer is that there are some things that we can do with BIS and the Cabinet Office in terms of putting out information through Sciencewise—trying to have that public dialogue with people to get exactly the same sort of reaction as you, madam chair, about what these sorts of uses may well be. We hear a lot of stories about Amazon for example possibly delivering goods and, as we noted earlier, I am sure there will be lots more uses of this. It is the balance of having a regulatory framework that does not stifle the growth of the industry—I think there can be some very good uses there—but directly addressing privacy, in particular, and safety, which we have touched on here.

The Chairman: Ethics.

Adam Simmons: The cross-Whitehall group is well aware of those issues and does discuss them. It probably gets to the point of when we open the doors to that and have that conversation more publicly. We are starting to do some things through the Sciencewise approach, but engagement on this will be very difficult. For me, that is going to be the big challenge.

The Chairman: Thank you. Do both of you agree?

Paul Cremin: I do agree, but I would add one more challenging question that you might want to put to industry—I am sure you will be talking to most of the industry.

I think the challenge for government, as I am sure you recognise, is that we often get a number of companies or entrepreneurs coming to government and seeking government money to support their products. That is no different for the bigger aerospace companies. We are in a very different climate now, as we all know, and we understand that there are technical issues and regulatory issues. In America, although it is a very different market, you find companies investing in products and bringing them to a level of maturity, and then coming to the government and saying, “We have a fairly mature programme. Let us exploit that programme to the best value”. In the UK, we find the opposite: “I will not develop my programme unless government or somebody with public funding pays for it”. We have to get out of this. If industry truly believes that this is a revolution in the aviation industry, it has to step up to the mark as well.

The Chairman: In other words, we ought to become a can-do country.

Paul Cremin: Exactly. In government, we support a number of initiatives and we will try to help them where we can, but that is what we would like to see if they believe in their products that much and believe in the opportunity.

The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. We will send you a transcript but, if you have any bright ideas at about 3 o’clock in the morning, get out of bed and go and write them down and send them to us. Thank you very much indeed.