Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
AIR VICE-MARSHAL
SIMON BOLLOM,
AIR VICE-MARSHAL
STUART BUTLER
AND AIR
VICE-MARSHAL
CHRIS NICKOLS
CBE
6 MAY 2008
Q80 Robert Key: Or in a restricted
area (temporary) under Article 96 of the Air Navigation Order
2005, but what is the difference between a restricted area (temporary)
and a temporary segregated airspace, TSA?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: For all
intents and purposes of flying a UAV, nothing.
Q81 Robert Key: But technically what
is the difference, please?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Simon,
is that something you have got?
Air Vice-Marshal Bollom: I do
not have that.
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: I am
not sure we have it to hand. We can get back to you, but for the
purposes of flying the UAV, to us, the area restrictions are the
same. We have to observe the same sort of safety regulatory regime.
Q82 Robert Key: I would be very grateful
if you could send us a note saying what is the difference because
in their evidence to us the CAA refers to these zones as restricted
area (temporary) but others, including QinetiQ, talk about temporary
segregated airspace.
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Again
we will write to you but I am pretty sure they are talking about
exactly the same thing. [8]
Q83 Robert Key: The real problem with
all this is that a single-engined beast like UAV could drop out
of the sky and with luck it will glide, but it may not be lucky.
There have been a number of problems with these, in Israel of
course and elsewhere, so how do you assess the risk of UAVs failing
and falling out of the sky?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Of course
the air worthiness regime that we go through for UAVs is the same
airworthiness regime that we go through with an ordinary fixed-wing
aircraft. The sorts of failure rates on a UAV that is designed
to the same standards as, let us say for example a single-engined
light aircraft, are very, very similar, so again the element of
risk there is one associated with a Cessna 150 or any light aircraft
which again is single-engined.
Q84 Robert Key: And at the moment
the only place where UAVs are being trialled is down at Aberporth
I think?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Indeed
that is where we are tending to do the majority of the trials
although we have done trials elsewhere. In fact, the earlier maritime
investigation that I referred to was done up in the north of Scotland.
Q85 Robert Key: But given that the
Royal Artillery is going to be training the Army in how to use
these things tactically, the Salisbury Plain Training Area is
the favoured place, and I have to convince my constituents that
there is not going to be a problem with UAVs buzzing around, which
of course they cannot see and they cannot hear but they know will
be there. I gather that at the moment the Civil Aviation Authority
has not come to a satisfactory agreement with the Ministry of
Defence. How long do you think that will be because we know that
Thales has told us their contract is absolutely bang up-to-date
and that is fine but if they are not allowed to fly these things,
is this going to mean slippage for our Forces?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: There
are a number of things we are doing and we also have fallback
options in both cases. We would like to operate it in Salisbury
Plain because in terms of routine training that is clearly the
best place for us to do it, that is where the Army units are operating.
However, we have to go through the same CAA regulatory regime
that we would for any other aircraft. I referred to Danger Areas
but what we mean is an area of restricted airspace where we can
fly the UAV. However, we do have fallback options and, in the
extreme, for example, there are a number of danger areas in the
US that we could use. Clearly that means that we will not get
quite the standard of training, certainly on the routine side,
that we would do back at Salisbury Plain but we do have fallback
options should we be required to do so. Salisbury Plain is pretty
critical because we do need to, as best we can, fly it on a routine
basis when the Army are operating in Salisbury Plain, and that
is where they do their routine training. So we have a fallback
which will not be as good but again I emphasise that we have to
go through the same regulatory regime with the CAA that we would
with any other request for a change in area and we are doing so
at the moment.
Q86 Robert Key: I understand that
and I am very grateful on behalf of my constituents who will be
much reassured and that is all very well, but we are using UAVs
currently in Afghanistan and Iraq so actually we are saying it
does not matter if they drop out of the sky on top of Afghan people
and Iraqis?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: No, that
is not true either. We have gone through an airworthiness regime
to fly any air vehicle in any country, and we have to get clearance
to do so, and we go through a fairly strict regulatory regime.
It is all weighed off against the risk and also the circumstances
in which you are flying them. Again the risk rates for flying
your average UAV are broadly similar to a single-engined light
aeroplane so they are not that dissimilar.
Air Vice-Marshal Bollom: Just
to reinforce the point, for military aviation we tend to operate
in terms of probability of injury somewhere in the order of 10-5
and in putting together the safety case for Reaper, and indeed
for Watchkeeper, we are operating in exactly the same regime and
you take account, as my colleague has mentioned, of a whole range
of factors. It is not just how you design the air vehicle and
how it is produced and maintained; it is how it is operated and
the sorts of areas that it is going to fly, so that is all done
very rigorously in the same way that we would with a manned vehicle.
Q87 Robert Key: Are you between you,
three distinguished Air Vice-Marshals, part of the assessment
of the use of autonomous vehicles in general in the military sphere?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Can I
just say that the safety case for a particular platform is led
and owned by the Service that operates them, but what we do have
to have is an independent safety adviser who will look at the
safety case that we put forward and provide advice back to us.
Q88 Robert Key: Of course it is not
just the military, Chairman, who will be using these vehicles,
we already know that a number of police forces are trialling them,
and this does lead to whole new areas of risk that have to be
assessed within the civilian community, let alone the military
because there will be civilian applications, and people are thinking
about this, I hope?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Yes,
as I say, we have a very strict regulatory regime for flying UAVs,
exactly the same as we would if for example we procured a new
single-engined light aircraft. We would have to go through the
same regime there and the standards are very similar.
Q89 Robert Key: If a UAV does fall
out of the sky, who will be responsible for any injury or death
caused by that system?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: I would
have to come back to you on that one.[9]
Q90 Robert Key: I wish you would, please.
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Because
again it is not simple. It depends on where it is and who it is
being operated by.
Q91 Robert Key: It is why I asked
the question.
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Yes of
course and again we can come back to you on that one.
Q92 Mr Havard: You could use them
in the area of Salisbury Plain now as long as they are within
that area. The argument, as I understand it, is having to come
out of that current area in order to use all the stand-off capability
for the machinery; is that right?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: That
is correct.
Q93 Mr Havard: But we have training
areas in BATUS in Canada and Hungary and so on; I presume there
is no difficulty in using them with joint training there, is there?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: No, it
is simply a function of size. Because the capability you have
with Watchkeeper requires a much greater standoff distance for
you to get the full impact of the sensor, Salisbury Plain Training
Area is simply not big enough. It was for Phoenix but it is not
for Watchkeeper. BATUS, as you know, is a much much bigger training
area so hence there is not an issue out there and of course it
is a permanent Danger Area.
Q94 Mr Havard: It is just you mentioned
the United States of America but you did not mention these others.
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: There
are a number of these around the world. There are quite a lot
in the Middle East as well for example so there are a number of
areas where we could use them should we be required to do so.
Q95 Chairman: Getting back to the
allies question, the NATO Joint Air Power Competence Centre has
said that the integration of unmanned aerial systems is not occurring
in NATO and, "Nations are developing stove-piped systems
that do not integrate with each other nor with NATO networks."
Do you agree with that?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: To an
extent yes but largely no. We go through a number of systems,
as I was mentioning earlier, on the bilateral side but also on
the international side initially at "5-eyes", we do
some at "7-eyes", some at NATO and some of the coalitions
of the willing and it really depends on how we are looking at
it as to how we integrate UAV systems. For example, the data that
we provide from Reaper goes into a central collection centre in
Al Udeid in Qatar as it happens and that information is used by
almost every nation within the coalition. It is quite frequently
transmitted on individual nations' transmission systems or on
a NATO system, for example, but it is available to the vast majority
of the coalition so in that sort of case it is very simple. It
is transmitted where it can be, but there are a number of issues.
I will be perfectly honest, when you have a UAV transmitting data
down to the ground on a direct line, for example, you need the
correct receiver at the bottom, so what we need to do as part
of the planning process is make sure the UAV that we are flying
in a particular area suits the particular troops that we are supporting,
which again is more of a planning issue of the "direct"
bit of the DPCD cycle, so in general terms it is pretty good but
I am not under-estimating the challenge there. Unfortunately,
in terms of the balance of investment, you have to hang your hat
somewhere and there are a number of NATO standards which we always
conform to. There are a number of interfaces which we recognise
we have to make work and again we do that at a variety of different
international fora to try and make sure we get the best from what
we have got available.
Q96 Chairman: I think the answer
you gave about the dissemination of the data across different
countries was aimed at the second `D' part of the DPCD whereas
what this report was referring to was the `C' part, the collection,
and there are lots of different types of UAVs none of which seem
to be compatible with each other.
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Indeed,
but again I will refer you to one of the things we mentioned to
one of the earlier questions and that is the fact that the focus
of all of this needs to be where the information is being delivered.
To a soldier on the ground with his laptop who is receiving his
picture, he does not actually care whether it is Reaper or whether
it is a Watchkeeper or whether it is a Canadian system or an Iraqi
system; he just wants his data, so providing the standards work,
it does not really matter.
Air Vice-Marshal Nickols: It is
just worth making the point for instance in Afghanistan an awful
lot of the UAVs are either Predator As, Reapers or Hermes 450
and the same ground terminal will accept the imagery from all
three of those, whether they be UK, US, or indeed any other nation,
so while there are still some problems with some systems we are
tackling it and addressing the problem, particularly in the operational
areas.
Q97 Mr Crausby: Some questions about
future ISTAR capability requirements. What ISTAR capability is
the MoD seeking in five years' time and could you say something
about weaponisation as well with regard to the UAVs over that
period and what issues will arise from all of that?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: We are
constantly keeping the ISTAR capability requirements under review.
There are a number of systems which we currently have in the plan
on which we could certainly send a note to you but I would not
want to discuss it in open session. Regarding the arming of UAVs,
I think there is a declared open intent that we will arm Reaper.
We do have clearance to do so from the US and it will be carrying
the Hellfire missile largely and a small bomb. Outwith that there
are no current plans, but we are constantly keeping our requirements
under review and that does not mean to say that it will not be
so in the future.
Q98 Mr Crausby: Can you say something
about the speed of technology change as well. Are we not in danger
of technology changing so quickly that by the time these things
are ready they are over?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Not really.
The change in technology of the platform itself is not that rapid.
It has been and if you were to draw a graph of how the technology
has gone, it has gone very steep but now it is starting to level
out because we have got to a point where you can largely build
it faster or bigger or smaller, so it is not a giant leap in the
technology itself. The only additional bit I would add to that
maybe is the advent of the unmanned combat air vehicle where we
do already have some research, as you will be aware, under the
Taranis programme with a consortium led by BAE Systems looking
at the unmanned combat air vehicles, so there are some advances
to be had there because it deals with different requirements to
the UAV but largely we are there with standard UAV platforms.
Q99 Mr Crausby: What about specialist
personnel, how is the MoD ensuring that we have the right levels?
Is this an area of concern?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: It is.
We are learning very rapidly by operating the systems that we
have. The Army for example are very familiar with operating with
a tactical UAV because they have done it with things like Phoenix
for some time so it is no giant leap for them. For the Airforce
it has been because we have been getting into an entirely different
way of doing business. We have learned the lesson very quickly
over the last year or so and we now have a better understanding
of the type of person that we need and we are making sure that
we have got a future plan to generate that type of person.
8 See Ev 87 Back
9
See Ev 87 Back
| 
