RPA Operations in the Malta FIR [En-route] Presented by Mr. Robert Sant Chief Operations Officer Malta Air Traffic Services

RPA Operations in the Malta FIR [En-route] Presented by Mr. Robert Sant Chief Operations Officer Malta Air Traffic Services

RPA Operations in the Malta FIR OBJECTIVES OF THE PRESENTATION To provide a snap shot of RPA operations in the Malta FIR To share the experience in the management of RPAs, associated ATM / CNS issues and mitigations taken Note 1. Presentation is focused on Military RPA (Predator / Reaper / Global Hawk) operating in transit within high seas international airspace. Note 2. Some issues addressed in the presentation may be related to MILITARY mission requirements and not specific to RPA operations.

Malta FIR Delegated ATS 360 NM ROME FIR / UIR ATHENS FIR HELLAS UIR TUNIS FIR 131 NM MALTA TMA MALTA FIR / UIR 598 NM TRIPOLI FIR Lower Limit Upper Limit Classification of Airspace MALTA FIR MSL FL195 Class C (within the lateral limits of designated routes) Class G outside regulated airspace MALTA UIR FL195 UNL Class C up to FL460 Class G above FL460 MALTA TMA 2000FT FL195 Class C

Issues to be Covered 1. LOA between ATS Unit / Operator 2. ATC Operational Issues 3. Flight Operational Issues CNS

LOA between ATS Unit / Operators LoA between airspace users / Malta ATS is the pre-requisite to enable RPA transit operations in the LMMMFIR. Issues: No standard LoA template available Not ideal for tactical use of alternative airspace / corridor requests Covers procedures with one entity only normally operating from one location

LOA between ATS Unit / Operators Different requests for different users within the same military organization (eg. Navy / Air Force) Different procedures for different users including differences with types of RPAs in respect to RCF / NORDO failures Multiple LoAs for different users is not the way forward

ATC Operational Issues ATC Procedures address: 1. Minimum Lateral / Vertical Separation Minima; 2. Airspace / Corridors to be used; 3. Flight Planning / Notification Requests; 4. RCF / Datalink / Emergency Procedures.

ATC Operational Issues ATC handling ATC applies tactical activation of designated RPA corridors following notification by previous sector. In practice, ATC manages transit RPA as a single aircraft when identified on radar with increased separation minima Airspace is not segregated as long as RPA is operating as GAT and surveillance is available Operational concept applied is that of a MOVING BUBBLE.

ATC Operational Issues NOTAM promulgation No NOTAM is issued when corridors are activated: Not possible as pre-notification of date / time is not normally available until receipt of FPL No added value to other users since airspace / routes are not closed by ANSP If complete segregation of corridor is required it will be treated by ATC as a contingency measure

ATC Operational Issues ATC issues Too many corridors in local ATC system Operational concept is transitioning from the use of corridors to a moving bubble of airspace Too many dedicated RCF / direct pilot-controller communications on local VCS especially with increase in multiple operators / units ATC applies NDS procedures and increased separation minima mainly as mitigation measures How does ATC distinguish between the different users / types of RPA and associated application of LoA procedures? Mainly by use of previously agreed call-signs

RPA Corridors in LMMMFIR Issue: Proliferation of corridors

Based on experience and best practice RPA Separation Criteria

RPA Operations in the Malta FIR 2000FT 2000FT Moving Bubble concept

14

15

Handling of RPAs not subject to LOA Ad-hoc coordination with MATS Airspace Cell for NOTAM promulgation (even outside controlled airspace) of TSA/danger areas when notified and requested by user No coordination of RPA activity at low levels (normally associated with ship borne RPA) Issues with unidentified low-level RPAs in controlled airspace (Luqa CTR) operating with ships

Flight Planning Issues ZZZZ in TYPE field causing ATC / AIS manual intervention as FDP unable to read FPL Use of O in field TYPE OF FLIGHT even though routing has GAT segments (military issue) Field 15 routing Name of corridor Coordinates only Waypoints using DCT

Flight Planning Issues IFPS processing unable to determine correct trajectory times for long endurance flights / circular flights causing incorrect flight data processing in local ATC systems and wrong indication of Traffic Load / Occupancy Counts OAT / GAT mixture and lack of harmonization between ANSPs in handling transit RPAs is confusing users and creating unnecessary ATC workload / capacity issues Harmonization of RPA procedures over the high-seas is an objective within the BLUEMED FAB.

Flight Operational Issues COMMUNICATIONS Time lag between controller-pilot communications not compatible with medium to heavy complexity sectors Time lag varies with different users / types

Flight Operational Issues COMMUNICATIONS RPA pilots not listening watch Confusion with GAT / OAT status of flight Pilots engaged in other tasks Pilots expecting only to report at specific time / waypoints Off frequency time? Not clear to ATC if RPA is in RCF status or not

Flight Operational Issues COMMUNICATIONS Quality of Pilot Transmissions Pilots not always aware of name of corridors or waypoints within corridors How secure are direct pilot-controller communications in RCF events using public telephone numbers (even though reserved for special use only)

Flight Operational Issues SURVEILLANCE Inability to apply ORCAM procedures as some military users prefer to retain original assigned military code Unauthorized changes of codes Transponder failures

Flight Operational Issues NAVIGATION Frequent change of levels presumably due to: Weather Icing Temperature Engine Mission requirements Requests for levels higher than those agreed in LoA (eg. up to FL350 with maximum FL280 in the LoA) with multiple requests for level change received in the space of a few minutes; Frequent requests for use of wrong semi-circular levels: OAT / GAT issue? Lake of pilot awareness? Operational needs?

Flight Operational Issues NAVIGATION With some RPAs strong headwinds / crosswinds leads to continuous change in headings as far as 5NM left / right of corridor center line Frequent requests for lateral deviations outside assigned corridor or alternative route.

Thank you