Day One at the RAeS UAS Conference #UAS17

Yesterday was day one of the UAS conference at the Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS) in London and I thought I would share the highlights as it gives me something to do while on another pre-7 o’clock train into London, temporarily joining the rat race. There were approximately 70 people in attendance yesterday and it was good to catch up with the usual faces but it was also good to see a few new ones too. The event was sponsored by NATS (my former employer!), Altitude Angel (our data service provider partner) and Flock (crazy yellow t-shirt wearing disruptors!).

Mike Gadd from the CAA, opened the conference and reaffirmed the UK Position; “The ANO does not prohibit anything from happening.” Summarising with “Demonstrate you can do it safely.” He noted that sUAS is just a stepping stone to unlocking other capabilities, but that increase in challenge to get us there is quite a big step. Today’s use of sUAS technology is a forerunner to adoption of larger UAS and even what we might call flying taxi’s. With Boeing and Airbus now heavily invested in this area we can be confident this is more than just science fiction and will arrive sooner than we think.

There was an amazing presentation on developments in robotic technology designed to imitate the movements or capabilities found in nature such as a fly landing on a ceiling or a bird undertaking a flaps down stall approach! However, that was the shiny stuff and we are not short of technology or solutions on the shelf waiting to be put to good use.

It was great to hear that Atkins, via Pete Grinstead, have been undertaking some work on the what enabling infrastructure (EI) was required and related it to a ‘DVLA model’ Replacing case-by-case approach of approval in order to reduce uncertainty, ambiguity, and risk. Pete also noted it would take a legislative change to enact the powers that would be required.

This echoed what was reported in a recent Pathfinder update where Paul Cruddace from the Ordnance Survey, quoted 53% of respondents saw legislation as a major barrier to the adoption of sUAS within their sector with another 33% saw training as another barrier. A “simpler process for for safety case submission” and “Process of special case at congested areas” was explicitly cited. This seemed to be agreed by the audience who during a survey in the morning “thought regulations were too onerous”. Mike Gadd CAA replied ‘depends on where you sit’. This is a valid point as the regulations are there to protect the public and other air users.

You might have read and recall that I made some comments in a recent article here where I stated that I believe we are seeing the birth of a significant new air user that warrants specialist regulation in order to allow it to flourish. In the 1970’s commercial air transport was becoming so popular that on the back of the Lord Edwards report in 1969, the government created a new specialist body to regulate it. Until then, the regulation of airspace was the responsibility of the Air Registration Board before the CAA was established in 1972, under the terms of the Civil Aviation Act 1971, following the recommendations of a government committee chaired by Sir Ronald Edwards. I won’t go off on too much of a tangent but there are many other examples you could draw with NATS, BPA, AAIB, BMFA and MAA before you think that somehow it becomes segregated.

We spent a significant time discussing standards which I believe are key. Neil Kidd made some great points about them being Interoperable and Open. This is a key point and is probably a fundamental reason behind the success of the internet. Which incidentally did not require many regulatory bodies to make it work!

Would the internet have been regulated if governments or organisations could have moved fast enough to somehow control it? I think we are fortunate that the internet is open and democratic.  It was one of the very few examples I can think of where standards are harmonised (we still haven't managed it with cars!) and that was achieved without any nation, government or body attempting to regulate it. However, just because it is unregulated doesn’t mean it is unpoliced. Which is ironic as the drone landscape is regulated but largely unpoliced! A common frustration of small UAS operators who have invested resources to be compliant.

We have been very fortunate in the UK to have a CAA that adopted a ‘light touch’ regulatory approach and as far back as 2014 regularly gave out exemptions based on bespoke safety cases which led to the forerunner of the OSC; the CAOSC (or ‘chaos’ as it was known!). However, we need to continue to help forge a path through what is quite a complicated piece of work for anyone from a non-aviation background. There are three steps we can take to contribute to the continued growth of the UAS industry.

1. Define a pathway through the OSC process.
2. Commission a study, similar to the Edwards report, to determine what we need for the future.
3. Work with industry to define some requirements, either prescriptive or performance, in order to stimulate a market in to producing solutions to get us to the next stepping stone.

And let’s solve all of the above in a two week regulatory hackathon (sorry, wishful thinking!)

My final and probably controversial comment; at a recent software event, Saastock, in Dublin most of the attendees wore trainers, t-shirt - blazer combos. Some of the biggest investors in the world were in t-shirts (key point as these guys/girls fund the big ideas like the internet). While in London more than half the room wore suits and ties. Wearing my converse at the Aero society made me feel like I was swearing in church! Will conventional behaviour get us anywhere in this non-conventional space?

Looking forward to day 2…..