share the air agenda - arpas€¦ · share the air agenda session organisation timing conference...

Share the Air Agenda

Session Organisation Timing

Conference Opening Dame Deirdre Hutton CAA 10.00 - 10.15

Support for Electric Conspicuity Dr Eamonn Bernie DfT 10.15 - 10.20

The case for sharing the air - A view from today’s operation Andy Sage NATS 10.20 – 10.45

GA Airfield ATS ADS-B Traffic Display Trial Steve Cooper City Airport & Heliport 10.45 – 11.10

Fostering safety and trust through transparency: Amazon’s perspective on integrated UAS operations

Sean Cassidy Amazon 11.10 – 11.35

Air Traffic Management in a world with Electronic Conspicuity – a General Aviation perspective

Julian Scarfe PPL/IR 11.35 – 12.00

LUNCH

Beyond Segregation - using alternative technologies to aid the integration of manned and unmanned aircraft

Gavin Goudie and David Walters NBEC 13.00 – 13.25

Operation Zenith: A ‘world first’ in Sharing the Air Mark Watson NATS 13.25 – 13.50

Summary of call for evidence, our vision and future challenges Sophie O’Sullivan and Stu Wain CAA 13.50 – 14.20

BREAK

Table Discussions: Feedback on suggested vision and how we engage throughout this work

Table Discussions 14.40 – 15.40

Bringing our work together. Next Steps. Mark Swan CAA 15.40 – 16.00

The case for sharing the air -A view from today’s operationAndrew Sage, Head of UTM, NATS

27th June 2019 CAA Share the Air Conference 2019 4

Contents

Why is “Sharing the Air” a safety imperative?

What are the emerging needs of airspace users?

How have we started to enable sharing of airspace?

So what are some of the essential elements?


Drones >50% of UK Airprox reports

6

Excluding AIRPROX reports classified as Drones related

27th June 2019 CAA Share the Air Conference 2019

The impact of not Sharing the Air…


NATS Airspace Infringements Dashboard


NATS Drone Safety Dashboard


The growing mix of airspace users


Drones – new pressures on airspace


• NATS Drone Assist application – over 130,000 voluntary users• Nearly 6,000 commercial drone operators licensed in the UK

• The most commercially valuable operations are often near cities – this means they will typically be close to major airports, airfields and controlled airspace

• Flight plans do not follow predictable paths – requires free route principles• Demand is immediate and requires automated and strategic de-confliction• Solutions that work for one-off trials such as temporary danger areas are not

sustainable in the long term for repeatable operations

Integrated operations in UK airspace


• BVLOS depends upon increased electronic conspicuity of all users

• Any increase in situational awareness reduces minimum required capability of airborne vehicle

• Safety cases are likely to require increased automation and flight conformance monitoring

• There is no substitute for flight hours to provide evidence of vehicle capability and reliability

13

A world’s first in manned/unmanned user integrationDemonstrating cooperative and uncooperative manned and unmanned aircraft in a variety of scenarios near a busy international airport• Drone position information to other users, improving

situational awareness• UTM/ATM interoperability using ATM infrastructure

and ATC procedures.• Demonstrate the information flow to and from a

UTM system• Including a safeguarding solution for an airport


Sharing the Air – Project Zenith

Sharing the Air – Airspace User Portal

14

• Currently evaluating Airspace User Portal to automate and route airspace requests

• A single means of gaining access to controlled airspace for ALL users

• Open to third party service providers• Building a single picture of traffic intent• Providing airspace alerts and situational

awareness• Gives airports access to approved flights

and enables informed risk assessments • Supports enforcement agencies


Sharing the Air – Advanced surveillance

15 1527th June 2019 CAA Share the Air Conference 2019

Oceanic services in North Atlantic• Space-based ADS-B fully operational and in trial since April 2019• Real-time air traffic surveillance extended from 30% to 100% of globe• Delivering capacity and fuel benefits without the need to

deploy ground infrastructure

North Sea Helicopter operations in uncontrolled airspace• Combination of radar and co-operative surveillance to

extend ATC service out to furthest oil and gas rigs• ADS-B approved by CAA as sole source of surveillance• Provides case study of future surveillance and

‘Sharing the Air’ in uncontrolled airspace

1. Phased implementation focused where there is a clear safety risk2. Ensure equal and fair access to UK airspace for all users3. Enable safe introduction of commercial drone operations into UK airspace

through increased airspace integration - not segregation4. Maximise situational awareness so that safety requirements can be

achieved with wide range of non-certified aircraft capabilities5. Create a surveillance service that adapts to the preferences of users and

does not impose unnecessarily expensive equipage requirements6. Ensure best practice by maintaining alignment with European and

international regulation/standards


Share the Air – our guiding principles

GA Airfield ATS ADS-B Traffic Display TrialSteve Cooper Flight Information Service Officer Manchester Barton


Aim “To gather evidence on the capability of ADS-B Traffic Displays to allow the CAA to assess this capability and give consideration to policy change authorising use of ADS-B real-time traffic displays by GA ATS units” Airspace4All


The Trial - Airspace4All Deploy ADS-B Traffic Displays at three

airfields (Manchester Barton, Goodwood and North Weald), with uAvionix PingStation receivers

- Airspace4All Provide based aircraft with SkyEchoPortable ADSB Devices

- Airspace4All gain daily and monthly feedback from ATS staff on the positives and negatives of the solution

- Airspace4All report to CAA at end of trial


Simple, Low Cost Connectivity


Why Manchester Barton ?• Variety of aircraft : Fixed Wing, Rotary, GA / Military

• 48,000 movements per year and increasing

• Complex Airspace

– Manchester / Liverpool CTRs

– ATZ boundary with the Manchester CTR

– Manchester Low Level Corridor

– Restricted Area to East

• NATS Infringement Prevention Award


Secondary to primary FISO toolset


Initial findings - FISOs• Low Cost

• Ease of Deployment

• Simple, Intuitive and Reliable

• Quick adoption by FISOs – no adverse comments re distraction etc

• Highly Accurate

• All FISOs report enhanced situational awareness

• Prevented several airspace infringements

• Assisted in emergency situation (aircraft disappeared from screen following complete electrical failure)

• Fixed install via transponder preferable to portable devices due to ‘shielding’


• Low Cost

• Display of other aircraft via in-cockpit displays a major benefit

• Would welcome expansion of Met Data via ADSB-In

• Battery life a significant issue, especially on SkyEcho 1 devices in a Flying School environment

• SkyEcho 1 devices cannot easily mounted in rotary aircraft

• LED indicators are difficult to see on SkyEcho 1 devices

• Some confusion between ADSB and PilotAware/ FLARM

• Restricted uptake of portable ADSB-Out devices due to CAP1391 restriction on dual use with ModeS – Removal of this would encourage greater uptake


Pilot Comments

Enhancements since trial start Display

• VRPs displayed on base map

• Added 10 nautical mile range ring

• Added trails to better emphasis aircraft track

• Added split screen providing focused ATZ view and reduces ‘clutter’

• Filtered out overflying aircraft above 5500ft to further reduce ‘clutter’

• Added ‘Quadcopter’ symbol to depict ‘drones’

Aircraft

• Use of SkyEcho2 in rotary aircraft – better form factor, better battery life

• Increased uptake of ADSB-Out by based operators – Fixed installations in some with support of Trig.


Future project support


GAINS – Large scale test of ATS / Pilot ADSB usage at Manchester Barton

NATS – Drone ADS-B Electronic Conspicuity in the GA Environment Project- University of Manchester- EJS Aerial- Airspace4All

Key future developments


• Airspace4All report published – Sep 19• CAA ADS-B Transceiver Simultaneous Transmission Trial• CAA Review of the Training, Qualification and Licensing of

FISOs • CAA Electronic Conspicuity – Call For Evidence

Fostering safety and trust through

transparency: Amazon’s perspective on

integrated UAS operations

Sean CassidyDirector, Safety & Regulatory Affairs

Amazon Prime Air

Amazon Prime Air

30 minutes—click to deliverypackages up to 2.2Kg

7.5 mile rangeMain themes: build, automate, integrate

#1 priority: safety

Supporting Safety and Trust• Identifying who is

operating UAS in a given area of interest,

• Determining whether operations are authorized for a given volume of airspace, and

• Facilitating the means to share safety critical information.

National

Security

Public Safety

General Public

Airspace Authority

BVLOS Remote ID

Equipped UAV

Non-Remote ID

Equipped UAV

Remote ID

Equipped UAV

USS

UAV Pilot

RC C2

link

Ground

Station

UAV Pilot

RC C2

link

Broadcast from GCS

Bro

adcast fro

m

UA

V

V2V

Network RID via

USS

UTM/Remote ID Framework(i) A real-time, automated network topology; (ii) Credentialed by the relevant National Aviation Authority

(NAA); (iii) Easily adopted on a global scale through a set of internet-

connected nodes; and (iv) Leverages existing technologies and easily implemented

mechanisms for UA identification and registration, as well as for communications between the UA and ground-based systems and integration with manned aviation services through air navigation service providers (ANSPs).

Prime Air MK27 Vehicle SystemIntegration through layered safetymanned unmanned

strategic ATC UTM

tactical TCAS/ADS-B

vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V)

last resort pilot SAA/DAA

Remote ID Progress Today

• Network Remote ID is really the first ‘UTM’ / USS provider service to be deployed and operated under the federated design that is being proposed within the CONOPS that have been shared to date (FAA / CORUS)

• Key focus within work on standards is driving toward performance based definitions with specific protocols defined where necessary for shared capabilities in the system

24 June 2019 6

UTM Space and Progress Today

• First ASTM UTM specific standard work is focused on the interoperability and protocols between USS providers needed for flight management services (flight planning, strategic deconfliction, situational awareness, etc.)

• Expecting to make this the primary focus after Remote ID is finalized for our immediate work efforts

24 June 2019 7

my drones

aviationauthority

your drones

my USS your USS USS-as-a-service

operator 2’sdrones

operator 1’sdrones

USS-USS

Remote ID Network

USS-USS

(UTM)

USS-USS

USS RID

USS-

USS

V2V

V2V &

BroadcastRemote ID

Vehicle-

Vehicle

U2V U2VUSS-

Vehicle

Call to Action

• Common framework for understanding & mitigating risk, and understanding offsets

• Performance-based standards that are agnostic to technologies (e.g. ADS vs LTE)

• Innovation hubs that promote public private partnerships (e.g. CAA Innovation Sandbox)

• Need for a mindset that you “need to operate to operate”

thank you

amazon.com/primeair

Air Traffic Management in a world with Electronic Conspicuity a General Aviation perspectiveJulian Scarfe, PPL/IR Europe


Regulation is about Safety RiskWe have rules to avoid having accidents.

=>

If there is no risk of an accident, we don’t need rules, standards, procedures.

There’s a legal framework that tells us how regulation must be made:

2. … In preparing and enacting such measures, … the Member States shall take into account, as appropriate for the activity concerned: …

(f) the extent to which the persons affected by the risks involved in the operation are able to assess and exercise control over those risks;


Different Stakeholders/Activities havedifferent acceptable level of risk

• Part-CAT operations– ~ 1 fatal accident per

100 million flight hours

• Part-NCO operations– ~ 1 fatal accident per

100,000 flight hours

1000 x

Air Traffic Management existsonly for mid-air collision riskIf there is no MAC risk, we don’t need:


And, Orville, if we do make it fly, don’t forget to

keep a really good lookout for other

aircraft…

Increasing traffic densityImagine a large volume of airspace like an FIR.

Introduce aircraft on random tracks.

One aircraft: no risk

Two aircraft: minimal (acceptable) risk

N aircraft: increasing risk…

Collision Risk scales as N2


Oops… ☹️ mid air collision!


First MAC, 1910 Painted Desert MAC, 1956

Image: Anynobody~commonswiki

Conflict detection and resolution requiredMAC can be avoided if aircraft can detect potential conflicts with other aircraft and can resolve them.

Historically, potential conflicts are spotted by:

See (and avoid)

Collision Risk scales as (1 - P)*N2

P is the probability of detecting a conflict in time to resolve it. Risk -> 0 as P -> 1


Conflict detection and resolution requiredIf see and avoid is not effective (P = 0 in IMC),

the historical alternative was Air Traffic Service.

ATS monitors, detects conflicts, provides resolution


Increasing traffic density furtherEventually we reach a traffic density and complexity at which, even if conflicts can be avoided, it is not reasonable for airspace users to resolve conflicts when they occur.

Air Traffic Managementrequired.


The ICAO airspace model


Class GLow risk



Class ERisk low enough with conflict detection by see and avoid in VMC, ATC required only in IMC



Class A/B/CManagedHigh density/complexity

Let’s review the evidenceAirspace4All’s report


MAC risk43 years of flight in the UK in class G

43 fatal mid-air collisions (about 10% of total fatal accident risk)

All of the collisions were in Visual Meteorological Conditions

Powered Aircraft tend to collide with other Powered Aircraft

Gliders tend to collide with Gliders

The majority of collisions between powered aircraft (57%) occurred near the airfield and the overwhelming majority of glider collisions (91%) occurred near the launch site.


See and Avoid doesn’t work“Research has indicated that ‘see & avoid’ is effective between 39% and 56% of the time”:

e.g. J W Andrews “Unalerted Air-to-Air Visual Acquisition” MIT Project Report ATC-152 (1991).


P is between 0.39 and 0.56 – Yikes!

N, traffic density, is the hugely dominant factor

The “Big Sky Principle” is remarkably good


Conclusions from what we now knowCollision Risk scales as (1 - P)*N2

P is not as close to 1 as the ICAO airspace model would like it to be! Nowhere near.

Nevertheless the risk is acceptable, but highest where airspace users are concentrated on an airfield or operating site.

=>

• Meteorological Conditions have almost no influence.

• The ICAO airspace model is seriously broken.

• Class E airspace is utterly pointless.


What if there were another wayof detecting conflicts?


Conflict detection and resolution requiredMAC can be avoided if aircraft can detect potential conflicts with other aircraft and can resolve them.


P is the probability of detecting a conflict in time to resolve it. Risk -> 0 as P -> 1

Electronic Conspicuity can be used to provide a high probability of detecting a conflict in time to resolve it.


Conflict detection and resolution requiredElectronic Conspicuity does not require VMC to detect and resolve collisions

Autonomy. No longer require ATC as a sentry.


Increasing traffic density furtherElectronic Conspicuity does not replace the need for

Management of Air Traffic in high density, high complexity environments.


Traffic density and mitigating risk


Low trafficdensity

High trafficdensity

Managed Autonomous Unregulated

Airborne equipment


Low trafficdensity

High trafficdensity


SSR reqd Electronic Conspicuity required?

Responsibility for avoiding MAC


Low trafficdensity

High trafficdensity


ATCseparates

User detects and avoids No significant conflict risk

Mapping on to current airspace


Low trafficdensity

High trafficdensity


Parts of current controlled airspace

Much current controlled airspace, some class G

Some current class G

What does EC have to do to deliver?Performance metrics:

Accuracy: displayed position vs true position

Integrity: chance of misleading information

Continuity: keeps working when you need it

Availability: available when you need it

Efficacy and utility: how does it help with decisions?


Performance: Status Quo for FISPerformance metrics:

Accuracy: “1 o’clock, 5 miles”

Integrity: “nothing on radar” or “weak primary contact, possibly a truck on the M4”

Continuity: “standby, I’m on the landline”

Availability: “limited due controller workload”

Efficacy and utility: “right to left”

EC does not have to be perfect to be much more effective than FIS


Different stakeholders Different acceptable levels of risk


Low trafficdensity

High trafficdensity



CAT risk levels only where CAT needs to fly

Electronic ConspicuityThe Airspace VisionManaged Autonomous UnregulatedHigh density/complexity Med density/complexity Low density/complexitySSR required Electronic conspicuity –

ATC separates User detects and avoids conflicts

No significant risk of conflicts

Parts of current controlled airspace

Much current controlled airspace, some class G

Some current class G


Summary and ConclusionsElectronic Conspicuity should:

• transform the way we think about airspace

• enable autonomy for traffic that is prepared to look after itself

• enable the humans in the ATM system to focus on management not monitoring


Operation Zenith: A ‘world first’ in Sharing the Air

Mark Watson, Head of UTM Service Integration, NATS


Operation Zenith – November 2018

A demonstration of how the UK drone• economy can be unlocked safely using existing technologies and current capabilities

To support the safe integration of new airspace users✓

Representative mixed traffic (manned & unmanned) in unsegregated airspace. ✓

UTM & ATM interoperability using existing ATM infrastructure and ATC procedures.✓

Demonstrate the information flow to and from a UTM system.✓

Created a known traffic environment by fusing ATC radar, ADS✓ -B In and Out, and drone detection systems – DJI Aeroscope and DE-Drone



System Overview

Locations

64

StyalPrison

07/08/2019 65

Safeguarding Scenario

07/08/2019 66

Airspace closure Scenario

Lessons Learnt – Sharing the Air

• ATC & controlled airspace can help integrate drone based services✓ Drones connected to a UTM system in an ATC Ops Room

• Need situational awareness for all airspace users - a known traffic environment under an airspace manager✓ Not necessarily tactical control

• Can use existing technologies and current capabilities✓ Electronic conspicuity by different technologies that meet performance needs✓ Fused surveillance picture


Operation Zenith: A ‘world first’ in Sharing the Air

Mark Watson, Head of UTM Service Integration, [email protected]+44 1489 615828


mailto:[email protected]

Summary of call for evidence, our vision and future challengesSophie-Louise O’Sullivan and Stu Wain


What we think can be achieved• Enhance safety by mitigating the risk of mid-air collisions with increasing demand

o (Stem the increase in numbers of reported airprox: 2018 saw 319 reported airprox, 138 of which were reported as involving UAS. Corresponding numbers for 2017 were 272 (112 UAS related)).

• Improve efficiency, by offering all airspace users access to the airspace they require to conduct their operations and enable innovative usage without further segregation.

• Enable UAS integration (via BVLOS) by establishing a comprehensive foundation of electronic conspicuity that UAS operators can rely on to detect and avoid other airspace users remotely or automatically using connected technologies.


Call for Evidence ‘… on a new strategy.’• Aimed to test whether:

• The proposed approach is correct

• We are considering the right issues

• We have developed the right options or whether others are needed

• The right stakeholders are engaged

• Today is an extension of that work!


A reminder…(Q4/17)

What do you fly? If you regularly operate different types of aircraft please select one that you most commonly fly.

75.94%

0.75%

1.32%

0.44%

1.00%

0.88%

12.03%

3.70%

0.06%

3.88%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Single engine aircraft (lessthan 5700kg)

Single engine aircraft (greaterthan 5700kg)

Multi engine aircraft (less than5700kg)

Multi engine aircraft (greaterthan 5700kg)

Rotorcraft (helicopter)

Rotorcraft (gyroplane)

Glider

Balloon

Powered parachute

Weight-shift control aircraft

Do you agree that full Electronic Conspicuity (EC) would be beneficial to GA safety in the UK?

89%

11%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes

No

And so…(Q2/19)

CfE: Timeframe and principles


Coordinating Adoption

Considers the approach to

coordinating full adoption of EC

solutions in targeted blocks of airspace and conduction of live trials to test key parts of our suggested approach

EC Deployment Scenarios Three simple

scenarios for the full adoption of EC

solutions in different blocks of airspace and the potential benefits

and dis-benefits

Technical Functions of EC

Solutions Establishing a common set of

technical functions and minimum standards or

requirements for interoperable EC

solutions

Benefits and Dis-benefits

Potential benefits and dis-benefits of

coordinating the full adoption of EC

solutions that will inform our decisions

about the deployment approach

The call for evidence ran from 18th March to 25th May

Call for Evidence Qs:• Should the CAA act to coordinate the adoption of )

interoperable EC in targeted blocks of airspace? )• Do you agree with our strategy to coordinate the full )

Binary adoption of interoperable EC in targeted blocks …via ) location specific mandates? )

• What functions should we focus on? )• What evidence should we use? • Have all options been considered?• Do you have any specific feedback?

CfE: Overall response rate

326 responses received


231

72

17 6

-

50

100

150

200

250

Total ResponsesShould the CAA act to coordinate the adoption of interoperable

EC solutions in targeted blocks of airspace?

Yes No Don't Know Not Answered

22%

CfE: Response rate groups


GeneralAviation

OtherAirspace

UsersKey Orgs. Aerodrome Air Traffic

EC SolutionsOrgs.

Interest Notidentified

Overall

Don't Know 14 - 2 1 - - - 17

No 55 11 4 - - 1 1 72

Yes 151 56 11 3 6 4 - 231

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Should the CAA act to coordinate the adoption of interoperable EC solutions in targeted blocks of airspace?

20-30%

CfE: Support for approach


GeneralAviation

OtherAirspace

UsersKey Orgs. Aerodrome Air Traffic

EC SolutionsOrgs.

Interest Notidentified

Overall

Don't Know 27 5 4 2 - - - 38

No 77 14 7 - 1 2 1 102

Yes 115 48 6 2 5 3 - 179

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Do you agree with our strategy to coordinate the full adoption of interoperable EC solutions in targeted blocks by using location specific mandates?

Why?

CfE: Functionality


47%

7%

26%

20%

Total ResponsesWhat EC functions should the CAA focus on when coordinating adoption?

A combination depending on the need.

Transmit only

What is already out there’?

What conspicuity do you already carry? Again – taken from the Q4/17 survey

14%

32%

1%

1%

8%

13% 31%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Mode S

Mode A/C

Other(e.g Pilot Aware, FLARM)

ACAS (TCAS)

ADS-B

None

Mode S + integrated ADS-B Mode S (no ADS-B)

44%

CfE: (High-level) Themes

• Cost vs Benefit across different users Groups

• Interoperability

• Practicality

• Human Factors

• Technical Limitations

• Airspace Expansion and Complexity


Don’t lose sight of what we are trying to fit this into…


Guiding principles

• There is general support for this work, some uncertainty around the CAA’s role.

• Our approach needs to recognise different available technologies.• Our approach needs to be flexible to meet local demand.• There is some uncertainty about mandating location specific areas. • GA is a diverse group and we need to recognise their differing needs.• UAS cannot see and avoid, UAS need the capability to sense and avoid.• Continued segregation is unsustainable.• We will continue to require research, help from industry and an agile

strategy.


Our visionWe are working towards a fully coherent solution to realise the maximum •number of benefits;

The first step in developing our strategy (based largely on the call for evidence •feedback and feedback we have had to date) is to test whether multiple systems could be used, however in our view the core of such a solution is ADS-B;

Equally, in our view we need to start with targeted blocks of airspace based on •evidence gathered about the risks and potential benefits;

A system utilising different technologies is dependent on interoperability, there •are many ways to achieve this – our work will explore this.


Challenges• How we define interoperability.• Frequency saturation - we need confirmation of 1090MHz ability to

support future demands in the short, medium and long term.• We need a methodology for identifying key volumes of airspace that

should be considered for adoption.• Understand and set appropriate system level cost of ground and air

infrastructure required for integration.• Availability of sufficient aircraft addresses to be allocated to

additional aircraft in uncontrolled airspace.


Tell us what you think

• What do you think of guiding principles?

• What do you think of our vision?

• What do you think of the potential challenges?

• What have we missed?

• Tell us your feedback on engagement.


share the air agenda - arpas€¦ · share the air agenda session organisation timing conference...

Documents