UAS Spectrum Activities in Europe

1

AERONAUTICAL COMMUNICATIONS PANEL (ACP)

WORKING GROUP F # 18

Montreal, Canada12 – 23May 2008

UAS spectrum activities in Europe

(Presented by C. Pelmoine, EUROCONTROL)

BACKGROUND – INTERNATIONAL ARRANGEMENT

ITU

UASradio spectrum allocations are on the agenda 1.3 for the ITUWRC11. The group 5B is specifically in charge of this agenda. At the last ITU 5B meeting in February 2008, a methodology (paper TEMP/34) to assess the spectrum requirementswas recommended. The paper TEMP/34 is attached as there is a large consensus in various organisations to use this methodology.

ICAO

A new study group UASSS was established. First meeting was held in April 2008. A task of this study group is to liaise with the ICAO ACP WGF on spectrum issue. The TORs is in attachment.

WORKING ARRANGMENTS IN EUROPE

There are many European forums dealing with UAS. The main civil forums dealing with standardisation and rule making of direct interest for radio spectrum are EUROCAE, EUROCONTROL, ASFCG and CEPT.

EUROCAE WG73

4 study groups

1. SG 1 Operations subgroup
2. SG 2 Airworthiness subgroup
3. SG 3 Communications and Radio Spectrum subgroup
4. SG 4 Small UAS subgroup

The TOR of WG73 is in attachment.

SG3 is the focal point for radio spectrum issue.

EUROCONTROL

Many domains within the EUROCONTROL Agency are working on UAS: airspace integration, legal, safety, security, human factors, CNS, radio spectrum. A inter domain coordination has been established under the lead of the airspace integration domain. The Ganttchart of the coordination activities is attached.

ASFCG

This Aeronautical Spectrum Frequency Group is the focal point for preparing the European inputs into the ITUWRC process. This group is in charge of developing the European Aviation Common Position.

CEPT

CPG (Conference Preparatory Group) is in charge of the European radio regulators inputs into the ITUWRC11 process. The CPGPTC Project Team works specifically on UAS spectrum requirements.

Draft CEPT brief on UAS prepared by PTCis in attachment

Relations with US

• RTCA SC103

WG2 is in charge of comms and radio spectrum. Weekly telephone contact between some members of WG73 SG3 and RTCA WG2 are regularly held to progress common issues.

• Joint FAA/EUROCONTROL research on UAS

The description of the research work plan is in attachment.

WHERE WE AREON SPECTRUM REQUIREMENT?

ITU 5B has recommended the following steps to assess the spectrum requirements:

1. Develop UAS deployment scenarios
2. Bandwidth requirement for a single UAS
3. Aggregate requirement for UAS scenarios
4. Suitable allocations
5. Radio services
6. Radio bands
7. Regulatory means

The table below provides a summary status of what is progressed.

• Deduced from the FAA/EUROCONTROL COCR document that has been presented in ICAO ACP
• Deduced from market analysis
• Deduced from ATM limitation

• 112 – 137 MHz
• 960-1164 MHz
• 1.5/1.6 GHz (currently under a MSS generic allocation)
• 5000-5150 MHz

LIST OF ANNEXES

Annex 1 : EUROCAE WG73 Terms of Reference

Annex 2: EUROCONTROL Agency Ganttchart

Annex 3 : CEPT brief on UAS radio spectrum

Annex 4 : FAA/EUROCONTROL research work plan on UAS

Annex 5: ITU 5B work plan and milestones for UAS spectrum

WG-73: Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Working Paper

1Purpose

1.1The non-existence of civil airworthiness certification and operationalapproval criteriafor Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) is seen as a major obstacle to the further development of UAS applications in Europe.

1.2Working Group 73, Unmanned Aircraft Systems, has been established to deliver standards and guidance that will ensure the safety and regularity of unmanned aircraft (UA) missions. This paper sets out the WG-73 Terms of Reference.

1.3These Terms of Reference have been updated at version 11 taking account of observations made during the activities of the group.

2Reference Data

(a)EUROCAE Presentation Paper on the Creation of WG-73-“Unmanned Aerial Vehicles”: 30th January 2006.

(b)EASA Advance -Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) No 16/2005

Policy for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle certification: 2005, and Comment-Response Document, December 2007.

(c)JAA-EUROCONTROL Task Force Final Report: A Concept for European Regulations for Civil Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: 11th May

(d)RTCA Paper 006-06/PMC-438: Terms of Reference for RTCA SC-203: Dec 16, 2005 (subject to amendment, 2008).

3Products

(a)Deliverable 1. UAS related elements regarding the Operational Concept. This report shall provide a preliminary inventory ofairworthiness certification and operationalapproval items to be addressed. The inventorywill be derived from a review of the JAA/EUROCONTROL “Task-Force Final Report”, May 2004, and other existing and relevant documents. A draft version should be completed by 30th November 2006, with the final version distributed and agreed by the working group by January 12th2007.

(b)Deliverable 2. Work Plan. The plan shall identify what needs to be done by WG-73 to develop a concept document that will become Deliverable 3.A preliminary draft of the Work Plan should be completed by 30th March 2007, and a working group agreed version by 31st May 2007. The Work Plan shall be maintained to address all required deliverables taking account of necessary coordination with RTCA SC-203.

(c)Deliverable 3. AConceptfor UASAirworthiness Certification and Operational Approval in the Context of Non-segregated Airspace. This document shall bedeveloped in accordance with the agreed Work Plan.The objective is to provide a document that will assist development of recommendations and a requirements framework for civil UAS such that they will operate safely within non-segregated airspace in a manner compatible with other airspace users, and taking account of the existing ATM regulatory framework, existing ATM infrastructures, and existing procedures. The document need not necessarily be a Minimum Aviation System Performance Standard (MASPS). If considered appropriate by the working group, the document could be comprised of several volumes that separate airworthiness certification, operational approval, and other matters. Although not within the remit of EASA responsibilities, UAS of less than 150kg maximum take-off mass shall be addressed.

(d)Deliverable 4. UASCommand, Control and Communication Systems. Thisdocument shall define the requirements forcommand, control and communication systemsincluding autonomous operation.Aworking group agreed version should be completed consistent with the concept planning ofDeliverable2. This document should be coordinated with the MASPS to be developed by RTCA SC-203.

(e)Deliverable 5. UASSense and Avoid Systems.This document shall define the requirements for sense and avoid Systems.Aworking group agreed version should be completed consistent with the concept planning ofDeliverable2. This document should be coordinated with the MASPS to be developed by RTCA SC-203.

(f)Deliverable 6. Catalogue of UAS ATM Issues. This documentshallidentify those aspects of UAS normal and abnormal operations that would require special ATM consideration. Potential technical and operational solutions should be identified that could assist EUROCONTROL and/or ICAO.

4Guidance

4.1 Scope of Work

4.1.1 The priority for WG-73 will be the development of material that will support UAS airworthiness certification and operational approvals. Payload considerations are outside of scope of WG-73 responsibilities other than for safety aspects under normal and fault conditions.

4.1.2 The intent of Deliverable 3 is to develop a UA systems requirements framework that would enable manned and unmanned aircraft to be managed in the same way within the existing ATM environment. However, WG-73 will not address ATM matters that are the responsibility of EUROCONTROL and ICAO. Liaison between WG-73 and EUROCONTROL will be established to assist in obtaining consensus on communications and spectrum issues with a specific focus on performance, interoperability and safety, and to obtain a common understanding of the current manned aviation ATM related regulations and practices and their impact on potential solutions for the integration of UAS.

4.1.3The intent of Deliverable 6is to identify those elements of the framework, developed for Deliverable 3, which could not support UAS operations in a manner compatible with other airspace users and within the constraints of the existing ATM environment, except possibly for abnormal UAS operations.The catalogue of issues, if any, would be considered by EUROCONTROL and/or ICAO for the purpose of identifying compensating ATM strategies associated with UAS ATM special handling. It should be noted that the stringent airspace requirements applicable to all airspace users will need to be respected (i.e. safety, security, airspace capacity, and airspace efficiencies being paramount), therefore the scope for accommodating UAS ATM issues could be small.

4.1.4The catalogue of UAS ATM issues, if any, will be developedas an on-going WG-73 activity. Identification of ATM issues will be based on a comparative assessment of the evolving UAS certification and operational requirements against those of manned aircraft. When appropriate, this activity will be coordinated with EUROCONTROL.

4.1.5 WG-73 will need to collate information to support EUROCONTROL in the development of a case for radio spectrum allocation by the ITU. Consideration should be given to the high-level radio characteristics of UAS communications including command, control, UA flight and system monitoring, sense and avoid functions, and air traffic communications taking account of operating scenarios, multiple UA operations, and assumptions about traffic levels.

4.2UAS Operations.

The challenge is to introduce and operate unmanned aircraft in non-segregated airspace in a way that meets all safety concerns and without a negative impact on existing airspace users. The following topics will need to be addressed.

(a) Identification, classification and description of the various UA missions in non-segregated airspace.

(b)Definition of the associated operational scenarios to the extent they impact ATM and safety requirements.

(c) Operators’ organisations and related operational approval aspects.

(d) Deleted.

(e) Specific required competences for pilots and system operators.

(f) Equipment required for operational purposes.

(g) Sense and Avoid requirements associated with the various operation types.

(h)Impact assessment for manned aviation (ATS, airports, operators) with particular attention to features that might be required on a UA to make it detectable to manned aircraftor other UA.

(i)UAS operational security for aircraft, control stationand personnel.

4.3Airworthiness and Continued Airworthiness (Maintenance).

4.3.1In the context of a global assessment of a complete UAS, some form of safety target will have to be established. Specific issues could be whether the airworthiness contribution to the overall safety target will be a fixed standard or variable according to imposed operating restrictions. This could be addressed through:

(a) Principles for regulation.

(b) Airworthiness certification categories.

(c) Special conditions and/or restrictions.

(d)Means of Compliance.

(e)Required competences.

(f)Command and control system requirements including autonomous operation.

(g)Ensuring continued airworthiness based on existing maintenance regulations applicable to manned aircraft.

4.3.2Today many UAS are in operation and many are lightweight. Different categories and requirements for maintenance may be appropriate.

4.3.3UAS airworthiness certificationwill need to include consideration of security features andsecurity risk mitigation strategies.

4.3.4Although the initial outputs of the Working Group do not include creation of a UAS airworthiness certification code or equipment standards, the work should be able to support with technical contributions to the development of a code and standards in accordance with the strategy adopted by EASA.

4.4Deliverables

4.4.1A preliminary review of the present UAS concept should examine the current regulatory context, defined categories, existing civil applications and likely new ones, with the objective of identifying issues associated with each type of operation. For the preliminary inventory of items to be addressed,Deliverable1, particular attention should be given to:

(a)Terminology, definitions and assumptions essential to understand UAS operations.

(b) Elaboration of the observations and recommendations of the JAA-EUROCONTROL and other relevant reports.

(c)Other subjects relevant to a requirements framework.

(d)Ensuring coherence with the US approach.

4.4.2For the Work Plan,Deliverable2, a schedule should be establishedwith work packages and key milestones.

4.4.3For the airworthiness certification and operationalapproval concept, Deliverable 3,the material should define the various UA types of operation being considered for realistic implementation but not necessarily provide a concept for all possible types of UA operations in all possible airspace. It will be sufficient to illustrate how UA could safely operate in the airspace in the foreseeable future within the existing CNS/ATM framework, and to address the major issues to achieve that objective.Guidance that defines the interrelationship between manned and unmanned aircraft should be included.The Working Group should then develop recommendations and establish specifications for operational and functional requirements of a complete end-to-end system, defining high-level architecture, describing individual components, and allocating performance, safety and interoperability requirements. It is likely there will be multiple architectures to match the different UA flight scenarios. For the specific case of UAS of less than 150kg Maximum Take-Off Mass, the task should be to collect and review existing material published by national authorities in order to generate common guidance material and recommendations that can be proposed for this category of UAS.

4.4.4The group will propose the outcome of its work as input to the European Commission Single European Sky (SES) legislative process, advisory input to the EASA NPA by providing guidance material, and a CS-ETSO for sense and avoid systems.

4.4.5The requirements for UAS Command, Control and Communication Systems should address but not be limited to:

(a)Human factors

(b)Reliability factors

(c)Data link functional, spectrumand security performance requirements.

(d) Autonomous operation.

4.4.6The requirements for UAS Sense and Avoid capabilitiesshould consider the need to fulfil the manned aviation safety level requirement. Recommended standards should address but not be limited to:

(a)Reliability factors

(b)Traffic, terrain and weather avoidance functional performance requirements

(c)Data/Communication links functional, spectrumand security performance requirements

(d)Operational safety considerations.

(e) Human factors

4.4.7Where it is appropriate to develop a MASPS, the MASPS should specify characteristics useful to designers, installers, manufacturers, service providers, operators and users of systems intended for operational use within a defined airspace. Where the systems are global in nature, the system may have international applications that should be taken into consideration. MASPS describe the system (subsystems / functions) and provide information needed to understand the rationale for system characteristics, operational goals, requirements and typical applications.

4.4.8WG-73 documents should be developed using the methodology described in ED 78A, Guidelines for Approval of the Provision and Use of Air Traffic Services Supported by Data Communications, which provides ameans to establish the Interoperability Requirements (INTEROP), the Safety andPerformance Requirements (SPR), and the Operational Services & Environment Definition (OSED) for aviation systems. When applying ED-78A, account will need to be taken of EUROCONTROL AMC ED-78A - ESARR 4 and its conditions, together with the later legal / regulatory requirements and associated implications of the Single European SkyRegulations and implementing rules. In addition, the security of remote command and control capability, including data communicationshas to be considered, since they form an integral part of the operation of UAS. This activity should be coordinated with EUROCONTROL.

5Coordination

5.1When needed, the Working Group should coordinate with other EUROCAE Working Groups tasked with the development of related systems/equipment and technologies.

5.2As appropriate, the Working Group should coordinate with other bodies dealing with UAS activities, for instance EASA, EUROCONTROL, FAA, RTCA, ASTM, SAE, ICAO, EDA andNATO.

Note: WG-73 is an independent Working Group and not part of a joint RTCA/EUROCAE committee. However, coordination between EUROCAE WG-73 and the corresponding RTCA SC-203 will need to be pursued.

ANNEX 2 - EUROCONTROL UAS Activity - Initial GANTTChart

Doc. ECC/CPG11/PTC(2008)33 – Annex03