Last November, the FAA quietly issued an ‘experimental certification’ to a Predator-type surveillance drone to operate in civilian US airspace.
General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA‑ASI) received a Special Airworthiness Certification in the Experimental Category from the FAA for its second MQ-9B SkyGuardian aircraft. The company-owned Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) – registered as N191FP and known as YBC02 – joins the first SkyGuardian in support of the MQ-9B development program. This certification permits YBC02 to conduct flight operations in National Airspace (NAS) as a civil aircraft.
A variant of the Predator, the 4000 lbs. SkyGuardian is the first military surveillance drone developed from the ground up specifically to qualify for FAA certification. (In fact, during its development, it was actually called the “Certifiable Predator B”). It was also aimed at European customers - the UK purchased 16 of the drones in 2016, christening it the “Protector”.
Unfortunately, it turns out the UK Ministry of Defense is not entirely sold on the crucial “detect-and-avoid (DAA)” technology, which is supposed to ensure that the unmanned aircraft doesn’t plow into civilian air traffic. When they purchased the drones, they specifically chose not to include the DAA system.
(Group Captain Lyndon Jones, the Ministry of Defence Air ISTAR program director) said the delay in contracting for the capability was because “we wished to better understand the technology.”
The drone maker, General Atomics, was not pleased. Sometime last year, they went over the MoD’s head, and lobbied Parliament directly:
Confirmed plans to integrate the detect-and-avoid technology come after lengthy delays in ordering, which prompted concerns at General Atomics that the Protector would be unable to meet capability requirements.
In written evidence to the British Parliamentary Defence Committee last year, the U.S. company said “failure to make appropriate provisions threatens to undermine Protector’s operational capability."
Lo and behold, as of this January, the DAA system is now going to be purchased for the UK Protectors. What changed? Let’s go back to that November General Atomics press release about operating SkyGuardian in US domestic airspace:
“The certification helps us towards our goal of full integration of RPA into the National Airspace System [NAS],” said David R. Alexander, president, Aircraft Systems, GA-ASI. “It will also help us in continuing the development of MQ-9B for our customers, the Royal Air Force and Belgian Defense.”
Is General Atomics being allowed to test unproven anti-collision drone technology in domestic US airspace, in order to help them make more sales overseas? Thanks, FAA. And it’s not just the Brits. Other European governments are watching to see how the American experiment turns out:
A study commissioned by the German government recommends considering U.S. technology in a quest to make the military “Eurodrone” safe to fly alongside civilian airliners, the Defence Ministry told lawmakers. {...} The list of options for obtaining collision-avoidance technology includes two scenarios involving American expertise: One is adopting relevant U.S. safety standards and designing a new European detect-and-avoid technology package based on those. The other is adopting U.S. standards plus existing American technology wholesale.
Potential sales for US drone technology are hanging on whether they can convince overseas customers that it works here in the American testing range. But there was one potential stumbling block. Last years 2018 FAA Act had a couple of problematic sections:
SEC. 723. Probabilistic assessment of risks.
The Administrator shall conduct research and development to enable a probabilistic assessment of risks to inform requirements for standards for operational certification of public unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace.
SEC. 724. Unmanned aerial vehicle-manned aircraft collision research.
(a) Research.—The Administrator shall coordinate with NASA to conduct comprehensive testing of unmanned aerial vehicles colliding with a manned aircraft, including—
(1) collisions between unmanned aerial vehicles of various sizes, traveling at various speeds, and commercial jet airliners of various sizes, traveling at various speeds; {etc.}
In other words, “FAA: DO NOT certify military drones to operate in domestic airspace until you have an idea of how likely it is that one of them will kill somebody”. The solution? Pass and sign into law a version of the Act where those stringent testing and risk-assessment sections for government drones are just gone. As the French say, voi-lah. Not long after Trump signs the 2018 FAA Act, the first SkyGuardian permit is issued. No risk assessment, no collision research.
This one drone is clearly just the first horse out of the barn. “Full integration of RPA into the National Airspace System” is coming. And yet, none of this will be reported domestically, at least not until it’s a fait accompli. The FAA’s 7-year collaboration with the Dept. of Defense and the drone makers to allow large military surveillance drones to operate alongside civilian air traffic is not a story, apparently. The safety and civil liberties implications are enormous. But this is likely the only place you’ll hear about it. What’s up with that, media-types?