CHAPTER 5: ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES
Role of SESAR JU
119. The Communication proposes that the Single
European Sky Air Traffic Management Research Joint Undertaking
(SESAR JU) should co-ordinate research and development (R&D)
to develop the key technologies required to integrate RPAS into
non-segregated airspace. It states that SESAR JU is "uniquely
placed" to co-ordinate the different research programmes
carried out by various EU agencies, such as the European Commission,
EUROCONTROL, the European Defence Agency, and the European Space
Agency, and to pave the way towards a gradual and smooth integration
of RPAS.[141]
120. In addition, the Communication promises
to define specific actions under Horizon 2020 and COSME[142]
to support the development of the RPAS market, involving in particular
SMEs. The Commission would co-ordinate these activities with SESAR
JU, "to avoid overlapping and leverage on the available resources".[143] Box
2: Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research Joint Undertaking
(SESAR JU)
SESAR JU is a public-private partnership, created in 2004 in order to develop the technological capacity to deliver the goals of the EU's Single European Sky programme. The Single European Sky aims to increase the capacity of the airspace and reduce the cost of air traffic management across Europe while increasing safety. In doing so, it will start to modify responsibilities between technology, air traffic managers and flight crew. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is currently carrying out a similar project in the USA, called 'NextGen'.
The total estimated cost of the development phase of SESAR JU was 2.1 billion, with funding provided equally by the European Commission, EUROCONTROL and the aviation industry. SESAR JU entered the last of its three phases in 2014, and is scheduled to continue until 2020. Its remit has recently been widened to include research into RPAS.
|
121. We welcome the Commission's support for
the development and incorporation of key technologies, which will
encourage the growth of the RPAS industry.
Developing new technologies and
regulatory uncertainty
122. The Communication states that some of the
key technologies required to allow for the safe integration of
RPAS into non-segregated airspace are not available. It therefore
proposes that research at the EU level should focus on the validation
of these technologies, and be efficiently coordinated in order
to keep the lead times for their development as short as possible.
Without this, the Communication suggests that the EU will continue
to be overshadowed in the global RPAS manufacturing market by
the current leaders, the USA and Israel, as well as newer competitors
such as Brazil, Russia, India and China.[144]
123. The Government, the Commission, the CAA,
Gary Clayton, UAVS, and Ray Mann, CEO of West Wales Airport, all
highlighted a 'chicken and egg' problem. On the one hand, regulators
were unable to define precise regulations without understanding
the new RPAS technologies and procedures that would be employed
to account for the removal of the pilot from the cockpit. On the
other hand industry was reluctant to invest in developing the
required enabling technologies because of the uncertainty over
how the technology would be regulated.[145]
The requirements to test new technologies rigorously, to ensure
that they are safe to use, meant that there was a long lead time
between identifying a technology need, its development and the
point where it could make a commercial return. Ray Mann said that
this regulatory uncertainty was undermining investment in RPAS
development:
"This waiting game has been going on for
10 years in the industry, and it has prevented a lot of companies
from investing in research and development and taking a capability
to demonstration and to market to enable systems to be produced".[146]
The technologies needed
124. In addition to the regulatory challenges
outlined in Chapters 3 and 4, potential applications for RPAS
are currently not possible without the development of certain
technologies. For example, the delivery of a light parcel by a
small RPAS in a town or city would require technology enabling
the RPAS to fly beyond the visual line of sight of the pilot.
The RPAS would need to detect and avoid objects such as trees,
lamp posts and people without pilot assistance. Moreover, if a
number of RPAS deliveries were scheduled for a similar time in
one area, a system to co-ordinate the traffic of small RPAS in
the airspace would be needed. To guarantee the safety of the operation,
the control link between the RPAS carrying the parcel and the
pilot would have to be secure. A loss in connection could result
in an accident. When scaled up, these challenges are similar to
those facing the use of large RPAS to transport cargo, and this
helps to explain why commercial operations for large RPAS are
not yet available in the UK or Europe.
DETECT AND AVOID
125. 'Detect and avoid' (DAA, also referred to
as 'sense and avoid') refers to the ability of an aircraft to
avoid mid-air collisions. The Government said: "The development
of an effective DAA system is key to the safe integration of RPAS"
into the airspace.[147]
AM-UAS Ltd said: "Based on our knowledge of the sector, we
feel that [Detect] and Avoid technology will be a turning point
in what is possible with RPAS. It will be this that allows the
large scale integration of unmanned aircraft into controlled airspace,
and over much longer distances".[148]
126. Currently manned commercial aircraft weighing
five tonnes or more are required to have a Traffic Collision Avoidance
System (TCAS). This system is intended to support the aircraft's
pilot, who is still legally responsible for 'seeing and avoiding'
other aircraft. TCAS relies on the use of a transponder and only
works with other "co-operative" aircraft that also have
transponders.[149]
If two large aircraft with TCAS detect each other, the respective
TCAS systems communicate to co-ordinate actions to avoid collision.
However, the system will not detect a smaller general aviation
aircraft without a transponder.
127. Large RPAS will have to operate in a similar
way to current manned aircraft and have technology which can be
detected by manned aircraft. Thales UK said that RPAS would have
to "carry a requisite level of equipment appropriate to the
class of airspace they intend to operate. This will include special
equipment such as a Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) Transponder
as well as an approved method of aerial collision avoidance."[150]
128. Witnesses emphasised that detect and avoid
system for large RPAS would have to go beyond the existing technology
used in TCAS, because it would also have to detect objects which
did not carry transponders. By way of example, Denis Koehl, Senior
Adviser for Military Affairs, SESAR JU, said that paragliders,
who fly below 500ft, do not carry technology to assist in their
detection by aircraft.[151]
AeroSynergy Certification Ltd confirmed that "a Detect and
Avoid system must be able to automatically take evasive action
with or without the RPAS pilot in the loop." It also said
that, given the potentially catastrophic consequences of a detect
and avoid system failing on an RPAS, such systems should "be
assigned the highest levels of software development assurance
and systems availability and integrity."[152]
129. A number of UK aerospace companies have
responded to the need to develop and certify detect and avoid
technology by collaborating with Government on a research project
to demonstrate and test this technology on a large RPAS. This
project, ASTRAEA, is described in Box 3. Box
3: ASTRAEA
ASTRAEA (Autonomous Systems Technology Related Airborne Evaluation & Assessment) is a UK industry-led consortium focusing on the technologies, systems, facilities, procedures and regulations that will allow highly automated vehicles to operate safely and routinely in civil airspace over the UK. The programme, which began in 2006 and concluded its second stage in March 2013, had a budget of £62 million, comprising government and private sector funding. The project consortium included Agent Orientated Software Limited (AOS), BAE Systems, Airbus Defence & Space, Cobham, QinetiQ, Rolls Royce and Thales.
Part of the programme, Separation Assurance and Control, focused on detect and avoid technology. It also tested the technologies required to control the aircraft from a ground control station and the integrity and security of the data link. The other element of the programme, Autonomy and Decision Making, tested sharing the system's in flight decision-making with a human operator.
In April 2013, as part of the ASTRAEA research programme, a Jetstream research aircraft completed a 500-mile flight through UK airspace from Preston to Inverness while under the command of a ground-based pilot and the guidance of NATS air traffic controllers.[153]
|
130. Members of the ASTRAEA consortium said that
the project helped to address uncertainty between industry and
regulators. Agent Oriented Software Limited, an SME in the consortium,
said that it invested in the project because it wished to be part
of the "development of regulations that are both safe and
efficient to comply with, and to build the company's profile in
the supply chains of the primes."[154]
Thales UK said that its experience on the programme provided it
with the understanding necessary to "access this breakthrough
market sector".[155]
131. The Government said that the ASTRAEA programme
had "seen numerous demonstrations of improved capability
of some of the key systems required and moved forward the formation
of draft regulations for their use."[156]
However, Mr Cremin said that there remained much work to
do: even after testing the technology, it was necessary "to
go through the full system-live demonstrations, as you would do
in testing any other product." He added that it could be
compared to the development of the Traffic Collision Avoidance
System for manned aircraft, which took over 10 years, and that
a potentially certified detect and avoid system might be available
"in and around the 2023 timetable."[157]
132. The second stage of ASTRAEA concluded in
April 2013. Aerospace Defence Security Space said that it was
important "that national initiatives in the UK and across
Europe are encouraged to support the body of evidence that has
been
collected by ongoing initiatives such as ASTRAEA."
It continued: "This is necessary to underpin system certification
of RPAS for the wide range of civilian uses which could be made
available."[158]
Thales UK also recommended continued support for the ASTRAEA programmes:
"Less than full engagement on current RPAS initiatives will
leave UK industry at a significant disadvantage and may lead to
an unrecoverable loss in market position."[159]
133. RPAS development is currently hampered
by a 'chicken and egg' problem: industry is reluctant to invest
in developing the necessary technologies without certainty about
how they will be regulated, while regulators are reluctant to
develop standards until industry comes forward with technologies
for validation. ASTRAEA is a good example of how industry and
regulators can work together to overcome this challenge through
shared funding and early joint working. We recommend that the
Commission adopts a similar collaborative approach to forthcoming
research projects in the RPAS sector.
134. As the second phase of the ASTRAEA programme
is now complete, we recommend that the UK Government publish a
plan setting out how it proposes to build on the programmes outputs.
AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
135. Air traffic management refers to the separation
of aircraft in non-segregated airspace, namely airspace that is
used by other aircraft. This separation is provided by ground
control staff who use the link between radar and on-board transponders
to detect airborne traffic in their area. The primary purpose
of air traffic management is to prevent collisions, and to organise
and improve the flow of traffic.
136. Large RPAS, weighing over 150kg, will have
to comply with existing regulations for air traffic management
if they are to be integrated into airspace shared with commercial
manned aircraft. The Professional Society of Drone Journalists
said: "Larger RPAS will be able to fly higher and have sense
and avoid systems and be able to be integrated into the current
air traffic system".[160]
Gerry Corbett, CAA, said that large RPAS in the airspace would
have to comply with existing requirements under the air traffic
management framework: "the way as a controller you deal with
a manned aircraft should be as close as possible to the way you
deal with an unmanned aircraft. We do not want air traffic management
systems to have to start dealing with different things at different
times."[161]
137. Indeed, this expectation underlies the decision
to make the SESAR JU the co-ordinating body for all RPAS research
and development projects. Neil Watson, of Thales UK, told us that
SESAR JU was currently undertaking research into understanding
"how an air traffic controller deals with an RPAS and the
fundamental differences in its operating characteristics."[162]
138. In contrast, we learned that it would not
be possible to use the existing air traffic management framework
to detect small RPAS. In response to suggestions that RPAS be
fitted with transponders, Mr Sivel said: "real transponders
would eliminate any small RPAS because they are quite large."[163]
Mr Lissone stressed that even if it were possible, fitting
all RPAS with conventional transponders would "have a completely
negative impact" on the management of large aircraft: "We
simply cannot cope with such an amount of transponders."[164]
139. A number of small RPAS stakeholders noted
that the creation of a system to manage the traffic of low level
flights was needed in order to ensure the safety of increased
small RPAS operations. Mr Meuleman said: "What we are
after
is that a kind of notification system, as we call
it, should be in place, because we know especially for traffic
control and so on, the major concern is that we do not see these
things flying."[165]
140. Flirtey, a UAV delivery company, urged us
to recommend that regulators "Provide a free Internet service
for all unmanned aerial vehicle operators to log their flight
paths, plan flights in advance, and to submit requests to Air
Traffic Control for higher risk operations" at short notice.[166]
Mr Lissone told us that a website was in fact in the process
of being developed in Ireland to track RPAS flights: "They
had huge issues of RPAS flying in Dublin City Airport and they
said that, if we could ask [RPAS pilots] to file authorisation
to fly in Ireland and then tell them where they are operating,
what altitudes and what times, this would generate automatic aeronautical
information to all the airspace users."[167]
141. It was unclear whether such a database system
should be developed by regulators or industry. Mr Lissone
told us that while SESAR JU was considering a system for small
RPAS, it would not be ready "for a very long time, when I
am already on my pension."[168]
Mr Koehl, of SESAR JU, said that industry should try to develop
solutions which could be used across the EU. The Commission could
support this by harmonising rules regarding operations, but that
from that point on "the game has to start from the industry
side". He continued: "We have to align local regulation
so that everyone can make business across Europe as a minimum.
That, for me, is the blocking pointit is the business,
it is the market, it is the industry
That is the main issue.
For me it is not [air traffic management]."[169]
142. Jay Bregman, the entrepreneur behind eCourier
and Hailo, said that he was working on a global identity registry
for robots (including RPAS). He agreed that industry should take
the lead, and opposed the creation of an RPAS database as a public
utility. This was because "the underlying technology and
the regulatory principles are evolving faster than the systems
we currently have in place to regulate them."[170]
143. There is persuasive evidence that such a
RPAS flight notification system could be Internet-based, or app-based,
and would not be resource intensive; it could achieve a high degree
of penetration given the prevalence of smartphone use. NASA in
the USA is already working on developing a website which will
allow RPAS pilots to reserve blocks of airspace for flights. There
is nothing yet in place at the EU level.[171]
In the longer term, as more small RPAS are flown commercially
at low altitude beyond the sight of the pilot, or even flown completely
autonomously, some sort of air traffic management infrastructure
to separate RPAS flights will be required in order to ensure the
safety of complex operations, for example, package delivery in
cities.[172]
144. In light of the evidence we have received,
and the example set by ASTRAEA, we recommend that the Commission,
the Government and the RPAS industry should work together to explore
the creation of an online database through which commercial small
RPAS pilots can provide details of their flights (below 500ft)
to inform other airspace users. In order to keep the UK and Europe
at the forefront of RPAS developments, we recommend that all parties
seek to engage with NASA in the USA, which is currently researching
the development of such a system.
COMMAND AND CONTROL (C2) LINK
145. A command and control (C2) link is a data
link between the pilot and the aircraft, which enables the pilot
to give commands to the aircraft and to download data along radio
waves. Mr Mann highlighted the importance of this technology:
"The command and control link is the difference
between a pilot on the ground and a pilot in the cockpit
With unmanned systems we need a technology that ensures that that
command and control is always linked to the aircraft, so that
no matter what happens in any circumstance the control can be
taken from the ground."[173]
146. Despite the fundamental importance of the
C2 link to safe RPAS operations, a number of technological challenges
still need to be addressed. First is the availability of radio
spectrum, upon which the command and control over the aircraft
is secured. Thales UK and the Royal Aeronautical Society said
that the lack of sufficiently available spectrum was particularly
concerning for RPAS operations because of the requirement to send
commands from the pilot to the aircraft along one set frequency
and to download data along another.[174]
147. Historically, the aviation sector has been
allocated a large amount of spectrum, which, in order to protect
human life, is safeguarded against interference. Mr Lissone,
though, said "the way aviation manages the aviation frequency
bands is on the outside seen as very poor." There was increasing
pressure from small RPAS users, the communications industry and
from some countries, such as the US and Germany, to allow the
use of non-safety certified aviation frequency bands for RPAS.
Mr Lissone warned that if this were to happen, it could undermine
the aeronautical industry's justification for maintaining control
of a large share of radio spectrum: "[if we] tell everybody
that we do not need these special frequency bands and that we
can do without
we have no fight whatsoever."[175]
148. The World Radio Conference in November 2015[176]will
be important in deciding the amount and type of frequencies that
should be used for RPAS.[177]
Mr Rahouja, DG MOVE said: "Shortage of radio frequencies
is a serious issue but has not been identified as an acute show-stopper
for the RPAS operations." [178]
He said that Member States must co-ordinate their positions in
order to defend their interests at the World Radio Conference.
On 6 January 2015 the UK telecommunications regulator, OFCOM,
stated that the UK would not support the use of non-protected
bands for RPAS C2 links.[179]
149. In addition to the availability of spectrum,
concerns were raised about which frequencies were used for certain
applications. The Association of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems
UK (ARPAS-UK), Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Special Interest Group
(UAV SIG) of the Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry Society (RSPSoc)
said: "whilst the majority of control and command [links
for small RPAS] operate on 2.4GHz and video downlinks are on 5.8GHz,
recent RPAS have been sold by Maplins with this combination reversed.
It is critical that for the industry to develop there needs to
be co-ordinated EC agreement on this issue."[180]
150. Evidence also highlighted the challenge
the RPAS industry faces in securing the C2 links from outside
interference. Aerospace Defence Security Space said: "The
use of such advanced networked systems introduces significant
information assurance issues, whose impact on safety is potentially
severe, although not fully quantified at present".[181]
BALPA referred to an incident in Australia which "was blamed
(albeit by the operator) on the link to the small quadcopter being
'hijacked'."[182]
English Heritage noted that the potential for the command and
control link to be hacked posed a security threat for data collected
by an RPAS. [183] Denis
Koehl, of SESAR JU, told us that his organisation had undertaken
a study into cybersecurity issues to determine the size of the
challenge, potential technical solutions and the resources required
to address them.[184]
151. We recognise that the allocation of spectrum
is a Member State competence. The Commission will have to respect
this while promoting the use of RPAS in the internal market. We
recommend that Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research
Joint Undertaking (SESAR JU) focus its research on improving the
security and integrity of the RPAS command and control link.
ISSUES WITH SESAR JU
152. The Committee learned that RPAS have only
recently been added to the final stage of the SESAR JU project.
André Clot, of EuroUSC, said: "SESAR has only just
begun in the past year to look at RPAS and [their] integration.
It has a long way to go, from my perspective."[185]
Ewan Kelbie, NATS, said: "There is potentially a bit of catch
up being played here. There is probably a view that in America,
for example, they might be slightly ahead in their thinking in
developing the potential infrastructure for RPAS in future."[186]
Denis Koehl, SESAR JU, acknowledged that RPAS were a recent addition,
but added: "We can say the way is clearly pathed to have
RPAS on board".[187]
153. In 2013 SESAR JU selected nine research
projects from various Member States focusing on how to integrate
RPAS into non-segregated airspace. 4 million is being spent
on these projects, which look at the integration of RPAS for coastguard
and civilian operations, and demonstrate technologies using air
traffic management services.[188]
154. The late adoption of RPAS into the scope
of SESAR JU is particularly concerning given the tight deadlines
for RPAS integration into non-segregated airspace. The Communication
states that progressive integration will begin from 2016 onwards.
However, the Government said: "the Commission's plan for
integration of RPAS into European Airspace from 2016 onwards is
highly ambitious and unlikely to be achieved owing to the vast
number of technological hurdles still to be overcome".[189]
Mr Sivel said that only parts of the target for 2016 would
be hit. At a Council of Ministers meeting in October 2014, "Ministers
lifted the 'until 2016', making it more of a political ambition
than the original, 'It must be adopted by then' because they realised
that sometimes haste is not always the best way to go about things.".[190]
155. The late inclusion of RPAS in the scope
of SESAR JU increases the likelihood that the Commission will
not meet its timetable for the progressive integration of RPAS
into non-segregated airspace. We recommend that a realistic timetable
for RPAS integration must be decided as soon as possible.
ACCESS TO R&D FUNDING FOR RPAS
156. Within the nine RPAS research projects supported
by SESAR JU, one project, CLAIRE, is based in the UK. Thales UK
said that it had been selected as the UK leader in this project,
and was supported by the UK air traffic management provider, NATS.
This project is assessing how the new harmonised European air
traffic management systems will accommodate RPAS as airspace users.
It is based on an incremental series of RPAS simulations, using
scenarios to exercise air traffic management interoperability
and communications concepts.[191]
157. The Communication stresses the importance
of including SMEs in research projects through COSME and Horizion2020.
However, we learned that SMEs, in contrast to Thales UK, were
finding it difficult to access EU level funding. Dr Sue Wolfe,
of Callen-Lenz Associates Ltd said that this was partly because
projects did not prioritise small RPAS applications.[192]
Mr Meuleman suggested that so far as SESAR JU was concerned,
an RPAS was "a military UAV that could hardly fit into this
room."[193] Mr Cremin,
of the Department for Transport, said that while the Government
was seeing an increasing number of applications from SMEs for
EU funding, the requirement for applicants to match the funding
being sought with their own capital was a problem. He added: "the
trouble is that a lot of the companies at the smaller end are
often one or two individuals working in a very small company who
do not necessarily understand the route to obtain European money."[194]
158. We recommend that SESAR JU, together
with Horizon 2020 and COSME, should focus more on the technological
priorities of the small RPAS sector. It should also consider the
financial barriers to SMEs' participation in research programmes,
and actively seek to increase their involvement.
141 Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament and the Council: A new era for aviation: Opening the
aviation market for the civil use of remotely piloted aircraft
systems in a safe and sustainable manner, COM(2014) 607, p 6 Back
142
Horizon 2020 is the EU's largest Research and Innovation programme
to date with a budget, with 80 billion to be distributed
between 2014 and 2020. COSME is the EU programme for the Competitiveness
of Enterprises and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises running
from 2014 to 2020 with a planned budget of 2.3bn. It plans
to support SMEs through better access to finance and markets,
supporting entrepreneurs and creating more favourable conditions
for business creation and growth. Back
143
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and
the Council: A new era for aviation: Opening the aviation market
for the civil use of remotely piloted aircraft systems in a safe
and sustainable manner, COM(2014) 607, p 9 Back
144
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and
the Council: A new era for aviation: Opening the aviation market
for the civil use of remotely piloted aircraft systems in a safe
and sustainable manner, COM(2014) 607, pp 3-7 Back
145
Written evidence from the Government (RPA0011); and AM-UAS (RPA0006);
Q2 (Paul Cremin), Q17 (Gerry Corbett), Q95,
Q44 (Gary Clayton) Back
146
Q29 Back
147
Written evidence from the Department for Transport (RPA0011) Back
148
Written evidence from AM-UAS Ltd (RPA0006) and Resource Group
Ltd (RPA0009). Controlled airspace refers to airspace under air
traffic management. Back
149
An aircraft transponder is an electronic device used to broadcast
an aircraft's position and identity through wireless electrical
signals. Its primary function is to provide air traffic management
with a 'radar' picture of traffic in the airspace. Back
150
Supplementary written evidence from Thales UK (RPA0042) Back
151
Q70 Back
152
Written evidence from AeroSynergy Certification Ltd (RPA0001) Back
153
Written evidence from NATS (RPA0036) Back
154
Written evidence from Agent Oriented Software Limited (AOS) (RPA0046) Back
155
Written evidence from Thales UK (RPA0030) Back
156
Written evidence from the Department for Transport (RPA0011) Back
157
Q9 Back
158
Written evidence from Aerospace Defence Security Space (RPA0021) Back
159
Written evidence from Thales UK (RPA0030) Back
160
Written evidence from the Professional Society of Drone Journalists
(RPA0032) Back
161
Q18 Back
162
Q27 Back
163
Q58 Back
164
Q72 Back
165
Q125 Back
166
Written evidence from Flirtey (RPA0050) Back
167
Q69 Back
168
Ibid. Back
169
Q71 ( Denis Koehl) Back
170
Written evidence from Jay Bregman (RPA0049) Back
171
'Unmanned aircraft: The robot overhead', The Economist (6
December 2014): http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21635326-after-starting-their-career-armed-forces-drones-are-now-entering-civilian
[ accessed on 4 February 2015]; Q69 (Lissone) Back
172
The Economist, op cit [ accessed on 4 February 2015] Back
173
Q26 Back
174
Written evidence from Thales UK (RPA0030) and the Royal Aeronautical
Society (RPA0018) Back
175
Q73 Back
176
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) holds a Radio
Communication Conference every three to four years at which it
allocates spectrum for different uses. The conference will discuss
the allocation of radio spectrum bands for command and control
links (C2) for RPAS. The conference is scheduled to take place
on 2-27 November 2015 in Geneva, Switzerland. Back
177
Supplementary written evidence from Thales UK (RPA0042) and written
evidence from the Royal Aeronautical Society (RPA0018) Back
178
Q97 Back
179
Ofcom, 'Update on the UK preparations for the World Radio communication
Conference 2015 (WRC 15)': http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/wrc15/update-jan-15
[accessed on 12 February 2015] Back
180
Written evidence from ARPAS-UK, UAV SIG of RSPSoc (RPA0005) and
Callen-Lenz Associates Ltd (RPA0004) Back
181
Written evidence from Aerospace Defence Security Space (RPA0021) Back
182
Written evidence BALPA (RPA0031). A quadcopter is a multirotor
RPAS. Back
183
Written evidence from English Heritage (RPA0007) Back
184
Q75 Back
185
Q18 (André Clot) Back
186
Q18 (Ewan Kelbie) Back
187
Q62 Back
188
SESAR, 'Demonstrating SESAR: Civil Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems
(RPAS) Integration': http://www.sesarju.eu/innovation-solution/demonstrating-sesar/rpas
[accessed on 4 February 2015] Back
189
Written evidence from the Department for Transport (RPA0011) Back
190
Q49 Back
191
Written evidence from Thales UK (RPA0030) Back
192
Q32 Back
193
Q129 Back
194
Q186 Back
|