Transport Committee on Dec. 6th, 2016

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

My next question is for Mr. Liu.

In your opening statement, you talked about Canada's leadership in the industry. Other witnesses we have heard from told us that Canada was lagging behind, particularly as compared with the United States.

Are we still a leader when it comes to drones, or are we lagging behind? If we are behind the times, where do we have the most ground to make up?

[Prof. Hugh Liu]

Thank you for asking this one. My view is that since Canada has a long history in aviation, as well as a large landscape and natural resources, there is a need for us to maintain the leadership position or maintain a certain leading-edge advantage in this sector.

Are we leading in all aspects? No, we are not, but we see that we have some emerging companies that have been doing very well nationally and internationally. They've been developing new designs of drones and new technologies. As well, in the background, we have very co-operative government agencies looking to allow those technologies to be tested, applied, or at least piloted. That is a great advantage on our side.

In terms of marketing size, we are not very big but we should focus on that technological advantage in certain areas. For example, for autonomy and for remote sensing, we definitely have a leading advantage with those technologies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Liu.

Mr. Iacono, go ahead.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I, too, would like to thank the witnesses for being with us and educating us on unmanned aerial vehicles, known as UAVs.

Mr. Kellar, you mentioned in your presentation that airspace in Canada is divided into seven classes but can generally be thought of as separated into controlled and uncontrolled.

Earlier, my colleague said there were four categories of UAVs. What is the relationship between those categories and the seven classes of airspace?

Should the regulations take the seven classes you mentioned into account, and if so, how?

[Rudy Kellar]

Yes, they should be taken into account, and the reason I tried to simplify the seven classes of airspace into uncontrolled and controlled was to simplify the view of that.

I don't know if the four classes of drones or examples of classes of drones, UAVs, that your colleague provided are the accurate ones, but it sounds like a pretty good place to start. It's not necessarily official, but it comes down to the government supporting the work that's currently under way with Transport Canada on implementing regulation that is not too constraining for the lighter recreational use of drones in uncontrolled airspace versus all drones in controlled airspace that pose risk.

Eventually, as time goes on—and this will progress most likely at a fairly good pace—the implementation of commercial use near controlled airspace or how it would operate outside of controlled airspace, lower flight altitudes, and beyond line of sight.... There are the different types of drones we can think about seeing, or UAVs, then there is the operating within line of sight, and then there is the future of operating beyond line of sight. All of this becomes much more important in and around controlled airspace, and in particularly airports and close to airports.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Could you tell us what the seven classes are?

[Brian Guimond, Manager, Military Operations and Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Nav Canada]

The class A airspace is high-level airspace, above a flight level of 18,000 feet. I should point out that the different classifications of controlled airspace are all based on the types of traffic that operate in those regimes, and it's all based on the amount of control service that's provided. Some of these airspace classifications have equipage requirements, so that the appropriate control service is provided.

Class B airspace is above 12,500 feet, and in that area all aircraft are controlled. Between 12,500 feet and the surface you have class E airspace, which is airspace that does not have the same traffic levels as the class D and class C airspace that appear around aerodromes.

It's a complicated issue to describe, because the rules that are associated with each class, as I mentioned before, depend on the amount of traffic that appears there and the rules that are applied to provide that service required to ensure flight safety. Class F is a special airspace that allows Transport Canada to restrict operations, so that nobody appears in that and nobody goes in there unless authorized by the user of that restricted airspace.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you. I'll give the remaining time to my colleague.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Kamran, you said, you were from the design side. With the advent of drones being found at the ends of runways, I'm concerned that one of these might collide with an airplane. I equate this to being a mechanical bird. I'm just wondering if airports can employ a mechanical hawk, because I see the hawks there to scare away the birds.

From a design perspective, can we have a drone designed to intercept these other drones? I know we have geofencing and the like, but that software can be overwritten. Do you want to comment on that?

[Prof. Kamran Behdinan]

That's a very good design problem, an open-ended problem. I don't think that we have such a thing right now. When there were all the bird strikes and the impacts, lots of research had been done around that. I'm sure we can look into that to see how we can provide a kind of firewall for the drones, as well. Right now, I think regulations where there is a safe zone around the airport and around people is a good way to go. I don't think we have such a shield right now, as far as I know, but that can be looked into. I don't have the answer to this, but that's a very good design problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

With respect to Nav Canada, has Nav Canada developed any strategies to manage or set aside airspace for UAV operations? That's question one.

The second question is, as a limited resource, how should UAVs and manned air vehicles safely coexist in national airspace systems?

[Rudy Kellar]

To answer the first question, the segregation or determination of airspace is a responsibility of Transport Canada, which remains the authoritative figure on that. We have actively worked with Transport and industry in Canada to allocate certain airspaces for testing and experimentation of the drone use across the country.

The second question, if I understood it correctly, is how we feel UAVs can coexist with commercial aviation, or general aviation, or any type of aviation. Is that the second question?

Some of the key points in my opening remarks were intended to directly reflect that. I think the real challenge starts with the integration into the various classes of airspace of what types of drones and what type of equipage and certification those relative types of drones would need in those classes of airspace.

My colleague Brian described a couple of the different airspaces. In simple terms, if you can imagine it like an inverted wedding cake, then the closer you get to the airport and to the ground, the higher the risk in a smaller area, which we need to be sensitive to for safety risks in terms of awareness for the operators of UAVs and the operators of aircraft in a busy terminal environment. At higher altitudes, we don't necessarily anticipate as much UAV traffic, but when it does someday evolve and will be in that airspace, the equipage of the UAV drone and the aircraft, and the communication techniques, need to be very similar.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

The biggest concern I have personally is with respect to security and safety, whether it's at an airport, in someone's backyard, or peeking into someone's window with respect to privacy, or with respect to security, flying one of these things into a stadium with 100,000 people in it, equipped with things they shouldn't be equipped with.

I'll throw this question out to all four of you. What is the ultimate solution well into the future to prevent those situations from happening?

[Rudy Kellar]

All I can say from the Nav Canada perspective is that our focus and our mandate is around the integration of aviation, piloted today, and now we have a new entrant piloted from the ground, within line of sight and beyond line of sight. As much as we can progress in a way similar to the way we moved new aircraft into the airspaces, we have to consider similar technologies and similar ways of operating the equipment.

The new technology that's available in a UAV is much smaller and moves at a faster pace, so from a regulatory rule-making and operating procedure side, we need to be ready to move relatively quickly as well, because it seems to be imploding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thanks, Mr. Kellar.

I would like to get Mr. Rayes in for a couple of minutes of questioning.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for joining us.

My first question is for the NAV CANADA officials.

Could you tell us a little more about existing regulations elsewhere in the world? Are we really behind on this? Are there things that others have done right that we should take into account?

[Rudy Kellar]

I don't think we're truly behind in Canada. From the regulatory perspective there are some small differences with our colleagues to the south of the border, in the United States, but some of those differences could suggest we're at pace or ahead.

In our understanding and our discussions with some of our colleagues in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere, I think industry is doing a pretty good job of trying to share information, and regulatory groups within those same jurisdictions are working pretty actively to share with each other their concerns and what they are doing. I see that as a good thing, but it's not necessarily universal. Not all states are on the same page, but certainly many of the more advanced states with which we work and deal closely are moving in similar patterns.

We're also learning from each other. That could be the operator of the air navigation system, such as Nav Canada, or it could be the regulator. I'm sure that if you ask Transport Canada you would get their view, but I think it's going quite well as far as sharing information is concerned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

This will be the last question.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you. I will stop there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Rayes.

I'm sorry. Time escapes us very quickly here.

I want to thank the witnesses very much for being with us today and again adding to the important work we're doing on the UAVs. Thank you all very much for being here.

I will suspend the meeting momentarily, and then we will be going back in camera for an additional half hour.

[Proceedings continue in camera]