REMOTELY PILOTED
AIRCRAFT SYSTEM (RPAS)
CONCEPT OF
OPERATIONS (CONOPS)
FOR INTERNATIONAL IFR
OPERATIONS
😈💩👎
REMOTELY PILOTED
AIRCRAFT SYSTEM (RPAS)
CONCEPT OF
OPERATIONS (CONOPS)
FOR INTERNATIONAL IFR
OPERATIONS
Disclaimer
This document is an unedited version of an ICAO publication and has not yet been
approved in final form. As its content may still be supplemented, removed, or otherwise
modified during the editing process, ICAO shall not be responsible whatsoever for any
costs or liabilities incurred as a result of its use.
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose .........................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Problem Statement.......................................................................................................................1
1.3 Scope.............................................................................................................................................3
1.3.1 RPAS Operations...................................................................................................................4
1.3.2 RPAS Technology Aspects.....................................................................................................4
1.3.3 Airspace aspects....................................................................................................................4
1.4 Key Assumptions...........................................................................................................................5
1.5 General Considerations.................................................................................................................5
1.5.1 Accommodation versus Integration......................................................................................6
1.5.1.1 Accommodation from Present to 2024 ............................................................................6
1.5.1.2 Integration from 2024 Onwards.......................................................................................6
2 System Overview...................................................................................................................................7
2.1 Remotely Piloted Aircraft..............................................................................................................7
2.2 Remote Pilot Station.....................................................................................................................7
2.3 Command and Control Link ..........................................................................................................8
2.3.1 Radio Line-of-Sight and Beyond Radio Line-of-Sight ............................................................8
2.3.2 C2 Link Performance .............................................................................................................9
2.3.3 C2 Link Protection.................................................................................................................9
2.3.4 Third Party C2 Link Service Provision....................................................................................9
2.3.5 C2 Link Frequency Spectrum and Management.................................................................10
2.4 Operational Safety Systems........................................................................................................10
2.4.1 Detect and Avoid Capability................................................................................................10
2.4.2 RPAS/ATC Communications................................................................................................11
2.5 System Interfaces........................................................................................................................11
2.6 Special Considerations................................................................................................................12
2.6.1 Human Performance...........................................................................................................12
2.6.2 Automation and Human Intervention ................................................................................12
2.6.3 Categorization of RPA .........................................................................................................12
3 Airworthiness......................................................................................................................................13
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
3.1 General Provisions......................................................................................................................13
3.2 Special Airworthiness Considerations.........................................................................................13
3.2.1 RPAS Classifications.............................................................................................................13
3.2.2 Airworthiness and C2 Link Service Providers......................................................................13
3.2.3 Airworthiness Approval and Oversight...............................................................................14
4 RPAS Operations.................................................................................................................................14
4.1.1 Aerodrome Surface Operations..........................................................................................15
4.1.2 RPA Landing ........................................................................................................................15
4.1.3 Future Operations...............................................................................................................15
4.2 Operators....................................................................................................................................15
4.2.1 Safety Management............................................................................................................16
4.3 Flight Trajectories .......................................................................................................................16
4.3.1 Point-to-point Trajectories..................................................................................................16
4.3.2 Defined Trajectories............................................................................................................16
4.3.3 Dynamic Trajectories ..........................................................................................................17
4.4 Operational Planning ..................................................................................................................17
4.4.1 RPAS operators ...................................................................................................................17
4.4.2 Air Traffic Management......................................................................................................18
4.4.3 Flight Planning.....................................................................................................................18
4.5 Special Considerations................................................................................................................18
4.5.1 Defining and Managing International Flight.......................................................................18
4.5.2 Delegated Separation..........................................................................................................18
4.5.3 In-flight Handover Between Remote Pilot Stations (RPS)...................................................19
4.5.4 In-flight Transfer of C2 Link Service Providers....................................................................19
4.5.5 In-flight Transfer of Operators............................................................................................19
4.5.6 Emergency and Contingency Operations............................................................................19
4.5.7 Flight Data Recording..........................................................................................................19
5 Personnel Licensing.............................................................................................................................20
5.1 Remote Pilot................................................................................................................................20
5.1.1 General Remote Pilot Licensing Provisions.........................................................................20
5.1.2 Credit for Prior Experience..................................................................................................20
5.1.3 Class and Type Ratings........................................................................................................20
5.1.4 RPA Category.......................................................................................................................21
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
5.2 Remote Pilot Instructors.............................................................................................................21
5.3 Remote Pilot Licence (RPL) Examiners........................................................................................21
5.4 RPAS Maintenance Personnel.....................................................................................................21
5.5 Air Traffic Controllers..................................................................................................................21
6 Operating Environments.....................................................................................................................21
6.1 International Airspace Rules and Procedures.............................................................................21
6.2 Airspace Requirements and RPAS Capabilities...........................................................................22
6.3 RPAS Performance Limitations ...................................................................................................22
Table of Figures
Figure 1 – Potential Network of Remote Pilot Stations................................................................................8
Figure 2 – Beyond Radio Line-of-Sight..........................................................................................................9
Figure 3 – Radio Line-of-Sight.......................................................................................................................9
Figure 4 – System Interfaces.......................................................................................................................12
Figure 5 – International Operational Flight Trajectories ............................................................................17
Glossary
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ACAS Airborne collision avoidance system
ADS-B Automatic dependent surveillance – broadcast
ADS-C Automatic dependent surveillance – contract
AGL Above ground level
AM(R)S Aeronautical mobile route service
AMS(R)S Aeronautical mobile satellite route service
ANSP Air navigation services provider
ASBU Aviation system block upgrade
ATC Air traffic control
ATFM Air traffic flow management
ATM Air traffic management
ATS Air traffic service
BRLOS Beyond radio line-of-sight
BVLOS Beyond visual line-of-sight
C2 C2 Link
CAA Civil aviation authority
CNPC Control and non-payload communications
CONOPS Concept of operations
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
DAA Detect and avoid
FF-ICE Flight and flow information for a collaborative enviornment
FL Flight level
FSS Fixed satellite service
IFR Instrument flight rules
MLAT Multilateration
PANS Procedures for air navigation services
PIC Pilot-in-command
RCP Required communication performance
RLOS Radio line-of-sight
RNP Required navigation performance
ROC RPAS operator certificate
RPA Remotely piloted aircraft
RPAS Remotely piloted aircraft system
RPS Remote pilot station
RWC Remain-well-clear
SARPs Standards and Recommended Practices
SSR Secondary surveillance radar
UAS Unmanned aircraft system
VFR Visual flight rules
VHF Very high frequency
VLOS Visual line-of-sight
Definitions
The following definitions apply in the context of this document. All definitions are based on ICAO
references except where indicted by brackets following the definition.
Aerial Work. An aircraft operation in which an aircraft is used for specialized services such as
agriculture, construction, photography, surveying, observation and patrol, search and rescue, and aerial
advertisement, etc.
Airborne collision avoidance system (ACAS). An aircraft system based on secondary surveillance radar
(SSR) transponder signals which operates independently of ground-based equipment to provide advice
to the pilot on potential conflicting aircraft that are equipped with SSR transponders.
Note.— SSR transponders referred to above are those operating in Mode C or Mode S. [Note
in Annex 10 — Aeronautical Telecommunications, Volume IV — Surveillance and Collision
Avoidance Systems only]
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
ATS surveillance system. A generic term meaning variously, ADS-B, PSR, SSR or any comparable groundbased system that enables the identification of aircraft.
Note.— A comparable ground-based system is one that has been demonstrated, by comparative
assessment or other methodology, to have a level of safety and performance equal to or better
than monopulse SSR. Source: Annex 15 — Aeronautical Information Services 2016, 15th edition,
Chapter 1, 1.1 Definitions.
Automatic dependent surveillance — broadcast (ADS-B). A means by which aircraft, aerodrome
vehicles and other objects can automatically transmit and/or receive data such as identification, position
and additional data, as appropriate, in a broadcast mode via a data link.
Automatic dependent surveillance — contract (ADS-C). A means by which the terms of an ADS-C
agreement will be exchanged between the ground system and the aircraft, via a data link, specifying
under what conditions ADS-C reports would be initiated, and what data would be contained in the
reports.
Note.— The abbreviated term “ADS contract” is commonly used to refer to ADS event contract,
ADS demand contract, ADS periodic contract or an emergency mode.
Beyond visual line-of-sight (BVLOS) operation. An operation in which the remote pilot or RPA observer
does not use visual reference to the remotely piloted aircraft in the conduct of flight.
Command and control (C2) link. The data link between the remotely piloted aircraft and the remote
pilot station for the purpose of managing flight.
Detect and avoid (DAA). The capability to see, sense, or detect conflicting traffic or other hazards and
take appropriate action.
Handover. The act of passing piloting control from one remote pilot station to another.
Lost C2 Link. The loss of command and control link contact with the remotely-piloted aircraft such that
the remote pilot can no longer manage the aircraft’s flight.
Operator. A person, organization or enterprise engaged in or offering to engage in an aircraft operation.
Note.— In the context of remotely piloted aircraft, an aircraft operation includes the remotely
piloted aircraft system.
Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS). PANS are approved by the Council. They comprise, for
the most part, operating procedures regarded as not yet having attained a sufficient degree of maturity
and stability for adoption as international Standards and Recommended Practices, or material of a more
permanent character which is inappropriate or too detailed for incorporation in an Annex.
Remote flight crew member. A licensed crew member charged with duties essential to the operation of
a remotely piloted aircraft system during a flight duty period.
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
Remote pilot. A person charged by the operator with duties essential to the operation of a remotely
piloted aircraft and who manipulates the flight controls, as appropriate, during flight time.
Remote pilot-in-command. The remote pilot designated by the operator as being in command and
charged with the safe conduct of a flight.
Remote pilot station (RPS). The component of the remote pilot aircraft system containing the
equipment used to pilot the remotely piloted aircraft.
Remotely piloted aircraft (RPA). An unmanned aircraft which is piloted from a remote pilot station.
Remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS). A remotely piloted aircraft, its associated remote pilot
station(s), the required command and control links and any other components as specified in the type
design.
Required communication performance (RCP) specification. A set of requirements for air traffic service
provision and associated ground equipment, aircraft capability, and operations needed to support
performance-based communication.
Required navigation performance (RNP). A statement of the navigation performance necessary for
operation within a defined airspace.
Note.— Navigation performance and requirements are defined for a particular RNP type and/or
application.
RPA observer. A trained and competent person designated by the operator who, by visual observation
of the remotely piloted aircraft, assists the remote pilot in the safe conduct of the flight.
RPAS operator certificate (ROC). A certificate authorizing an operator to carry out specified RPAS
operations.
Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs). SARPs are adopted by the Council under the
provisions of the Convention. They are defined as follows:
Standard. Any specification for physical characteristics, configuration, materiel, performance,
personnel or procedure, the uniform application of which is recognized as necessary for the safety
or regularity of international air navigation and to which Contracting States will conform in
accordance with the Convention; in the event of impossibility of compliance, notification to the
Council is compulsory under Article 38.
Recommended Practice. Any specification for physical characteristics, configuration, material,
performance, personnel or procedure, the uniform application of which is recognized as desirable
in the interests of safety, regularity or efficiency of international air navigation, and to which
Contracting States will endeavour to conform in accordance with the Convention.
Segregated airspace. Airspace of specified dimensions allocated for exclusive use to a specific user(s).
State of Design. The State having jurisdiction over the organization responsible for type design.
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
State of Manufacturer. The State having jurisdiction over the organization responsible for the final
assembly of the aircraft, engine or propeller.
State of Registry. The State on whose register the aircraft is entered.
State of the Operator. The State in which the operator’s principal place of business is located or, if there
is no such place of business, the operator’s permanent residence.
Unmanned aircraft system. An aircraft and its associated elements which are operated with no pilot on
board.
Visual line-of-sight (VLOS) operation. An operation in which the remote pilot or RPA observer
maintains direct unaided visual contact with the remotely piloted aircraft.
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
1
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations (CONOPS)
1 Introduction
Any aircraft intended to be flown without a pilot on board is referred to in the Convention on
International Civil Aviation (Doc 7300), signed at Chicago on 7 December 1944 and amended by the ICAO
Assembly as a “pilotless aircraft”. Today we call these aircraft “unmanned” rather than “pilotless”.
Unmanned aircraft (UA) include a broad spectrum from meteorological balloons that fly freely to highly
complex aircraft piloted from remote locations by licensed aviation professionals. The latter are part of
the category referred to as “remotely piloted aircraft” or RPA that operate as part of a system, a
remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS).
RPAS are creating a new industry with large economic potential. They offer a vast range of capabilities
and sophistication. Their associated technologies, designs, and operating concepts are evolving rapidly.
It is within this context that States are being challenged with the safe and efficient integration of RPAS
into environments shared by a highly regulated and well established manned aircraft industry.
1.1 Purpose
This concept of operations (CONOPS) aims to describe the operational environment of manned and
unmanned aircraft thereby ensuring a common understanding of the challenges and how the subset
that are remotely piloted can be expected to be accommodated and ultimately integrated into the
airspace for international instrument flight rules (IFR) operations. It describes RPAS terms, unique
attributes, challenges, and special considerations. In doing so, it provides a common view from which
ICAO and individual States can prioritize and address needs associated with the introduction of RPA into
their respective airspace. ICAO will use this CONOPS to inform the Air Navigation Commission, States
and ICAO expert groups to scope proposed amendments to ICAO Standards and Recommended
Practices (SARPs) and Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS). As such, this document serves as a
general framework to represent the perspective of stakeholders from Member States, including
regulators, operators, airspace users, manufacturers, air navigation service providers (ANSPs) and
aerodrome operators.
1.2 Problem statement
As stated above, RPA operate as part of a system called an RPAS. When discussing RPAS or their
operations, it is essential to clarify when the entire system (RPA + remote pilot station (RPS) + command
and control (C2) link + other) is the focus or a portion of the system is the subject, e.g. the RPAS
operator conducts RPAS operations, however RPA are separated from other aircraft in the airspace.
The operation of RPAS has been identified as having the potential for significant economic, societal and
environmental benefits and the rapid growth of RPAS has caused an increasing demand for them to
operate beyond visual line-of-sight (BVLOS) and in airspace open to other aircraft. While such operations
are currently allowed, each case must be separately assessed from a safety risk management
perspective. There is a need to establish the principles for RPAS operations in all classes of nonsegregated airspace.
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
2
Today manned aviation develops and improves upon ways to aid a pilot with the responsibility of flying
safely. Regulations (e.g., airworthiness certification) and procedures (e.g., periodic maintenance) assure
the integrity of the pilot’s aircraft. Initial and recurrent training prepare the pilot for anticipated and
unanticipated flight events. The pilot and perhaps others in the operator’s organization assist in the
preparation and planning for a safe flight. Civil Aviation Authorities (CAA) and air navigation service
providers (ANSP) provide and oversee a highly organized infrastructure comprised of procedures,
routes, and services to assure safe flight. All aspects of the air navigation system combine to manage the
safe, efficient flow of air traffic. The introduction of RPAS challenges the extant aviation system
infrastructure and raises multiple questions.
Elements of the current aviation system (infrastructure, procedures, policies, etc.) may need to be
modified to support the wide range of new capabilities characteristic of remotely piloted aircraft. The
challenge is to integrate all of these diverse RPAS capabilities within the current aviation system without
undue burden on current airspace users and service providers and without compromising safety. Once
this is possible we can consider having achieved integration of manned and unmanned aircraft
Due to the absence of a pilot on board the aircraft, technical solutions have been developed to control
the aircraft through data link from a remote location. The absence of a pilot on board also brings the
challenge of matching the ability of the pilot to “see and avoid” and “remain-well-clear” of other traffic
and dangerous situations, such as potential collisions with other airspace users or obstacles and severe
weather conditions. Furthermore, the remote pilot must be able to communicate with air traffic control
and other airspace users when and where necessary. This challenge means there are aspects that affect
most, if not all, sectors of the aviation system. For example the consideration of novel ATC
communication architectures, traffic management procedures, airworthiness approval of technical
capability, the potential use of third-party communication service providers, and changes in the
regulatory approvals and oversight regimes.
The existing SARPs and PANS must be revised, amended, or enhanced to define the manner in which
RPAS will have to comply. Where RPAS can comply in a manner similar to manned aircraft, they should
do so. RPA are not yet considered to be able to meet the intent of “see and avoid” comparable to a pilot
on board, but will eventually be equipped with the capability to “detect and avoid” (DAA) other aircraft
and hazards. Thus, some alternate means of compliance for RPAS must be included, where necessary, in
future iterations of these documents.
By 2030, a large number of RPA will share the airspace with manned aviation, some will be flying IFR.
While some RPAS operations will be conducted in accordance with IFR for a portion of their flight, others
will operate only under VFR. Similarly, RPA will operate in and transit through national and international
airspace as well as controlled and uncontrolled airspace. These RPA may depart from less congested
aerodromes and arrive at similar destination aerodromes, while others may use congested aerodromes.
All RPA will be expected to comply with the applicable procedures and airspace requirements defined by
the State, including emergency and contingency procedures, which should be established and
coordinated with the respective ANSPs. These types of operations mean that RPA will need to fly in
national and international airspace.
Other RPA will only operate at low altitudes, where manned aviation activities are limited. For example,
activities such as border protection, environmental uses, and wildfire and utility inspections; these could
still mean transiting international airspace.
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
3
As airspace is a scarce and sought after resource, States need to take a balanced approach that
harmonizes and meets the needs of users. This CONOPS highlights aspects needed for integration of
RPAS, the newest entrant into the civil aviation system.
1.3 Scope
This CONOPS describes RPAS operations, system descriptions, operating environments, control
methods, and interfaces with ANSPs and other aircraft. The scope is currently limited to certificated
RPAS operating internationally within controlled airspace1 under instrument flight rules (IFR) in
non-segregated airspace and at aerodromes in the 2031 onward timeframe.
The scope of the CONOPS does not consider fully autonomous aircraft and operations, visual line-ofsight (VLOS), very low altitude airspace operations and very high altitude operations (e.g. above FL600)
or carriage of persons and domestic operations.
The time frame aligns with ICAO’s Aviation System Block Upgrade2 (ASBU) estimated completion date
for RPAS Block 3 activities. Block 3 represents a period when RPAS certification processes will be
complete; avionics and ground systems made available; and State policies, regulations, procedures and
guidance permitting routine and safe operations are in place.
The ability to pilot an aircraft remotely offers a vast potential for new types of aircraft and their
operation that are not constrained by the need to accommodate human beings on board. This impacts
the design of aircraft, e.g. mass, size, performance, endurance, where and how they can operate and
how they can be assimilated into the airspace and its air traffic management system. There are also
implications on the safety assurance processes, as the focus can move from protecting the persons on
board an aircraft to those potentially affected by undesirable events, such as mid-air collisions or injury
to people and damage to property on the ground.
Each of the following areas will challenge the aviation frameworks in different ways and at different
rates and times, as determined by the needs of the evolving industries.
Future iterations of this document may expand this scope where evidence indicates unanticipated needs
resulting from market growth, technology advances or other unforeseen conditions. This expansion is
likely to include operations at very high altitude, very low altitude, autonomous aircraft and remote pilot
control of multiple RPA as these activities are already being actively pursued by operators.
1 The upper limit of control areas vary per the flight information region (FIR) for example, FL450, FL600 or FL660. 2 ICAO’s ASBUs provide a global systems engineering approach to facilitate the advancement of air navigation and
enable global harmonization, increased capacities and improved environmental efficiency. The ASBU framework is
presented in the ICAO Global Air Navigation Plan (GANP) and provides broadly-defined objectives. The framework
has four Blocks (0, 1, 2, and 3), each defining associated modules, objectives and timelines. Three RPAS modules
are defined in Blocks 1 (2019), Block 2 (2025) and Block 3 (2031 onwards).
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
4
1.3.1 RPAS operations
RPAS operations are currently structured around two major concepts: VLOS and beyond visual line-ofsight (BVLOS), which generally are being developed in areas not currently served by manned aircraft,
e.g. the lower or higher altitude environments and extreme endurance. Operations that are conducted
outside of VLOS are considered as “beyond VLOS” and where these can be flown in international
airspace under IFR they are within the scope of this CONOPS. As experience is gained and technical
capability grows, RPAS will undoubtedly transition into all areas of the airspace, as well as provide new
solutions that will be adopted by manned aviation. It is clear that there will be continued innovation and
with this a reasonable expectation to be able to access the airspace in a manner that will allow safe,
seamless and efficient end-to-end operations for all aircraft operations.
1.3.2 RPAS technology aspects
The design opportunities provided by the relocation of the pilot have opened several areas that
challenge the principles of the extant aviation framework, including the potential for one pilot to
manage multiple aircraft and the use of highly automated and autonomous aircraft. This version of the
CONOPS does not consider remote pilot control of multiple RPA. The distributed and interconnected
system of systems of an RPAS operation enables new ways to share data, not only removing the need
for some local sensors but offering the use of a wider information set; however, this increases
dependency on the electromagnetic spectrum and associated communication methods.
The ability to locate remote pilot stations around the world offers considerable opportunity for new
business models but raises questions of State-to-State oversight and cross-border relationships,
particularly with regard to jurisdiction issues on enforcement and liability.
From an airworthiness assurance perspective, the level of demonstration required for remote pilot
stations is an area where the levels and process of determining suitability may need to be considered
very differently to that of a manned aircraft cockpit, from maintenance, configuration control and
management processes to the certification process.
Such a fast paced and dynamic sector will also have very different lifecycles to that of manned aviation.
A much wider range of aircraft will likely be produced that principally undertake aerial work activity. This
diversity may not justify the cost of a type certification process as applicable for manned aircraft but will
demand suitably flexible and responsive regulatory approval models that are performance based,
supportive of innovation and which can develop the knowledge and skill sets of both regulators and
industry in parallel with the technology changes.
1.3.3 Airspace aspects
RPAS operations will require access to the airspace in line with the most effective end-to-end flight
profile. Provided the aircraft has the equipment required and follows the procedures for each class of
airspace used, and can meet the rules of the air, this should be possible. The potentially different flight
profiles and performance characteristics of RPA may pose some challenges for their management
through the airspace that will need to be understood and resolved. Their behaviour under non-normal
(contingency) conditions could similarly be very different from regular flight profiles and performance
characteristics, but some degree of predictability and conformance to existing defined procedures will
be needed to minimize conflict with other aircraft.
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
5
RPAS operations are, at first, likely to be managed through a process of accommodation, where each
new challenge is addressed by using the flexibility within the airspace management system, and where
necessary, limitations and conditions are set to minimize disruption to other users. Similarly, for
operations in areas of airspace not currently subject to routine operations, the first usage cases will aid
in the development of new rules and management processes.
As RPAS operations become more routine and frequent, and greater understanding of the operational
scenarios develop, the required adaptations to the aviation framework will be identified and
incorporated, such that in time, each operation becomes integrated into the overall system.
1.4 Key assumptions
The key assumption for RPAS is that in order to integrate seamlessly into the airspace, they must, as
nearly as practicable, comply with the operational procedures that exist for manned aircraft and flight
operations must not present an undue hazard or burden to persons, property, or other aircraft.
Furthermore, RPAS operations must not degrade the current level of aviation safety or impair manned
aviation safety or efficiency. This applies equally to all operators and all RPA/RPAS. Finally, RPAS should
conform to manned aircraft standards to the greatest extent possible. When these principles are not
achievable (due to unique RPAS designs or flight characteristics), and no alternate means of compliance
are identified, the operation of such RPAS may be subject to safety risk mitigations, such as restricting
operations to segregated airspace.
The key assumptions, which can be considered to apply to all RPAS operations, are described as follows:
1) access to the airspace remains available to all, providing each RPA is capable of meeting
pertinent conditions, regulations, processes and equipage defined for that airspace;
2) new types of operations may need additional or alternative considerations, conditions,
regulations, processes and operating procedures; the objective should be to add only the
minimum necessary to achieve safe operation;
3) the RPA has the functional capability to meet the established normal and contingency
operating procedures for the class of airspace, aerodrome, etc., when such procedures are
available;
4) the flight operation does not impede or impair other airspace users, service providers (such as
air traffic management (ATM), aerodromes etc.) or the safety of third parties on the ground
and their property, etc.;
5) the RPA must operate in accordance with Annex 2 — Rules of the Air;
6) the RPAS must meet the applicable certification/registration/approval requirements;
7) the operator must meet the applicable certification/approval requirements; and
8) the remote pilot must be competent, licensed and capable of discharging the responsibility for
safe flight.General considerations
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
6
Within the timescale considered, the general approach taken in the CONOPS is conformance to the
existing aviation system and its planned evolution and updates, rather than significant modification or
evolution albeit some level of change is envisioned. The expectation is that RPAS will be handled by
ANSPs like manned aircraft.
This approach cannot be successful without permitting some degree of RPAS operations to support
development of appropriate technical solutions. RPAS operations are also necessary for learning which
adaptations should be made for the unique characteristics and atypical operations anticipated. Hence, it
can be described as a period of accommodation that leads to integration, and ultimately to seamless
operations of manned and unmanned aircraft.
1.4.1 Accommodation versus integration
Accommodation describes the condition when an RPAS can operate along with some level of adaptation
or support that compensates for its inability to comply within existing operational constructs. This may
be necessary during normal operations, abnormal or problem scenarios, and when emergency situations
arise. For example, an RPA could be accommodated to operate in accordance with IFR in nonsegregated airspace using techniques such as dedicated corridors, or increased spacing around the
aircraft resulting in fewer restrictions on airspace usage. Accommodation allows for early RPA flights on
a temporary and transitional basis and in limited numbers before the required technology, standards,
and regulations are in place. The accommodation of RPAS in the aviation system is already routine in
many States.
Integration refers to a future when RPA may be expected to enter the airspace system routinely without
requiring special provisions. Integration will require the implementation of harmonized Standards and
Recommended Practices (SARPs) and procedures (PANS); hence, the first transition towards this goal is
dependent upon the publication of the ICAO SARPs, the first of which are scheduled for 2018 (remote
pilot licence).
1.4.1.1 Accommodation from present to 2025
Due to the absence of regulation and industry standards prior to 20243
, IFR capable RPA will be
accommodated in controlled airspace using specialized, enabling techniques. This is a regular occurrence
for military and civil operations today. Hence, the initial phase of accommodation can be maintained
during this timeframe due to the relatively low number of RPAS operations anticipated.
1.4.1.2 Integration from 2025 onwards
With the availability of regulations, standards, and relevant supporting technology, RPAS operations are
expected to begin integration by 2025. More complex and high-risk RPAS systems and operations—and
their associated requirements—are likely to evolve and allow for incremental, integrated access to nonsegregated airspace. Not until 20314 will a mature and complete set of technologies, standards,
3 The year 2025 corresponds to ICAO ASBU Block 2 objectives for the RPAS module.
4 The year 2031 corresponds to ICAO ASBU Block 3 objectives for the RPAS module
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
7
regulations, guidance and procedures be available to support transparent integration across the wide
array of RPAS and the types of operation possible.
2 System overview
RPAS are a subset of UAS. The term UAS is encompassing of all aircraft flown without a pilot on board
that operate as part of a larger system. This includes RPAS, autonomous aircraft and model aircraft.
Autonomous aircraft differ from RPAS in that they do not permit intervention of a human pilot to fulfil
their intended flight; whereas model aircraft are distinguished by their recreational use. In some
instances, the three subcategories of UAS overlap.
An RPAS consists of a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), remote pilot station (RPS), command and control
(C2) link, and any other components as specified in the type design. These components must be
approved as a system taking into account the interdependencies of the components. The RPAS must
also be interoperable with the ATC and airspace user systems. This section provides further descriptions
of the potential RPAS component designs that require approval and oversight.
2.1 Remotely piloted aircraft
There is a wide array of types of RPA. Many mimic the designs and flight characteristics of conventional
aircraft. This is particularly true where RPA may be used in traditional manned operations, such as large
commercial cargo transport. Whereas other RPA designs are dramatically different.
The opportunities in design, because the pilot is no longer situated within the aircraft, mean that novel
architectures are possible. Unique applications of airframes, powerplants, fuels, and materials can result
in flight characteristics different from conventional aircraft, most notably extreme flight endurances,
very high altitudes, and slow flight.
There are a number of potential elements of RPA that, while essential for safe operation, are no longer
considered as permanent features of the aircraft. For example, launch and recovery systems that
replace typical landing gear, wheels and brakes. These systems are considered to be part of the aircraft
system (i.e. RPAS) in so far as they are required for safe flight.
2.2 Remote pilot station
The RPS consists of the equipment used to command, control and monitor flight of the RPA. Designs can
range from simple hand-held devices to complex, networked, multi-console configurations. The RPS may
be located inside or outside of a building, and may be stationary or mobile (installed in a
vehicle/ship/aircraft). Security, both physical and cyber, must be assured. An RPA will only be controlled
from one RPS at a time.
For international operations—especially those involving very long duration flights—multiple, distributed
RPS may be employed. These RPS may be located at different aerodromes, or at off-aerodrome
locations, even in different States, as determined by the operator’s infrastructure or need for
communications coverage .
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
8
When RPS are located across different States, there are a number of new challenges. The management
and oversight of the RPS and the remote pilots flying the RPA, wherever they are located, are an obvious
issue for both the operator and the operator’s regulator. However, the legal aspects of jurisdiction and
enforcement, when actions are necessary, are new topics that will need to be identified and resolved if
confidence and trust in the aviation system is to be assured. Figure 1 illustrates a potential distributed
network for RPS located among States during different phases of flight.
Figure 1 – Potential network of remote pilot stations
2.3 C2 Link
The command and control (C2) link is the data link between the remotely piloted aircraft and the
remote pilot station for the purpose of managing flight. There are a variety of possible architectures and
considerations in the design, security and management of the C2 Link.
2.3.1 Radio line-of-sight and beyond radio line-of-sight
The C2 Link can be maintained within radio line-of-sight (RLOS) or beyond radio line-of-sight (BRLOS).
RLOS: refers to the situation in which the transmitter(s) and receiver(s) are within mutual radio link
coverage and thus able to communicate directly or through a terrestrial network, provided that the
remote transmitter has RLOS to the RPA and transmissions are completed in a comparable timeframe.
BRLOS: refers to any configuration in which the transmitters and receivers are not in RLOS. BRLOS thus
includes all satellite systems and possibly any system where an RPS communicates with one or more
ground stations via a terrestrial network which cannot complete transmissions in a timeframe
comparable to that of an RLOS system.
In order to facilitate international operations, the technical and performance requirements of both the
RLOS and BRLOS C2 Links will need to be defined and agreed upon internationally.
Figures 2 and 3 provide simplified graphics of RLOS and BRLOS architectures.
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
9
Figure 2 – beyond radio line-of-sight Figure 3 – radio line-of-sight
2.3.2 C2 Link performance
C2 Link performance requirements, will need to be adequate to not only allow the remote pilot to safely
fly the RPA but also support other airspace performance requirements, such as RCP and PBN, which
have agreed upon performance specifications on a global basis. States or ANSPs use these, globally
agreed, specifications in designated airspaces to support operational requirements and separation
standards. In order to access the airspace, operators must ensure their RPAS C2 Link has been designed
and operates in accordance with these performance specifications.
2.3.3 C2 Link protection
The security of the data exchange between the RPA and RPS will need to be specified in technical
standards in order to address vulnerabilities and associated mitigations.
2.3.4 Third party C2 Link service provision
The equipment and associated specifications necessary to enable the C2 Link between the RPS and RPA
are considered components of the RPAS, whereas the provision of a third-party data link service is not.
The transmitters and receivers used by data link service providers may be distributed in different States
and belong to a single entity or be shared by others. When some of the components are controlled by a
C2 Link service provider, the C2 Link service provider must be under the safety and security oversight of
a civil aviation authority or other competent authority of a State. Alternatively, the RPAS operator must
ensure that the service provider and C2 Link service provision is in accordance with the safety
management system approved by the State of the Operator.
It must also be recognized that the C2 Link service provider will likely support multiple operators and
aircraft. This introduces a potential failure element within shared C2 systems and thus the challenge to
mitigate the consequences of the loss of the C2 Link when involving more than a single aircraft.
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
10
2.3.5 C2 link frequency spectrum and management
Appropriately allocated frequency bands for the provision of an aeronautical safety service will be used
for the provision of the C2 Link. An example of such a frequency band is 5 030 – 5 091 MHz. This band is
allocated to the aeronautical mobile route service (AM(R)S) and the aeronautical mobile satellite route
service (AMS(R)S) and may be used for provision of both the terrestrial and the satellite C2
Link. Systems providing satellite service are not available in this band at present, however the feasibility
of launching such a system is currently being studied (as of September 2016).
A number of frequency bands in the fixed satellite service (FSS) are also being considered for the
provision of the C2 Link. The FSS has an abundance of satellite networks, however the radio regulatory
conditions governing the use of these frequency bands are not comparable to those for frequency bands
traditionally considered appropriate for the provision of aeronautical or other safety critical links.
The ITU World Radiocommunication Conference 2015 (WRC-15) developed Resolution 155, allocating
the FSS for use by the RPAS control and non-payload communications (CNPC)5
, conditional to a number
of specific conditions. These conditions will require further work within ITU and ICAO in defining the
required technical characteristics for the space and earth stations, the interference environment within
which they will be required to operate and the required performance of the C2 Link. The allocation of
the FSS will be reviewed again by ITU WRC-23 (in 2023) to finalize any supporting radioregulatory
provisions required.
ICAO provisions for C2 Link spectrum use will need to consider aeronautical safety implications due to
potential link outages as well as data transmission latency, integrity, and security. A risk-based approach
to C2 Link approval may be considered. Additionally, there may be a need to manage frequency
assignments for the C2 Link, especially in areas where large numbers of RPAS operations are expected to
take place.
2.4 Operational safety systems
Beyond those components of an RPAS required to enable physical flight, there are safety systems used
to satisfy operational requirements and mitigate failures. The extent and sophistication of operational
safety systems will vary depending on the intended use and complexity of the operational environment.
Examples of particular importance in enabling international IFR operations include systems for detecting
other aircraft and hazards; providing voice and data communication with ATC; and providing
surveillance information to ATC (i.e. pressure-altitude reporting transponder, ADS-B or MLAT).
2.4.1 Detect and Avoid Capability
The detect and avoid (DAA) capability for RPAS is analogous to manned aviation’s requirement to see
and avoid and maintain vigilance for the purpose of detecting and avoiding potential collisions. It is
considered a cornerstone necessary for enabling RPA integration. DAA capabilities include the ability to
maintain vigilance while detecting and avoiding conflicting aircraft and other hazards (e.g. obstacles,
terrain, and severe weather), determine an effective avoidance manoeuvre, execute the manoeuvre,
5 CNPC is the ITU term for the C2 Link
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
11
and safely return to the original flight or ground trajectory. These capabilities must be available to the
remote pilot so as to enable the appropriate decision(s) and action(s) to assure safe flight. However, in
the event of failure, e.g. a lost C2 Link, it may be necessary for the DAA system to respond automatically
to ensure enactment of the appropriate actions.
DAA technologies (airborne or ground-based) and procedures will need to be developed and
certified/approved to ensure not only the safety of the RPA, but interoperability with other aircraft or
obstacle collision avoidance systems. New procedures for controllers and pilots may be needed to
ensure DAA use is understood and integrated into normal and contingency operating procedures.
Furthermore, the remain-well-clear6 capability of the DAA system must be compatible with the rules of
the air and with any separation provision services provided by ATS. The DAA solution must not degrade
the level of safety of the RPA or the overall aviation system.
2.4.2 RPAS/ATC communications
RPAS will need to maintain continuous voice communication watch on the appropriate communication
channel and establish two-way communication, as necessary, with the appropriate air traffic control
unit, except as may be prescribed by the appropriate ATS authority.
RPAS conducting IFR operations must communicate with ATC while in controlled airspace. The methods
of communication may be via traditional air-ground very high frequency (VHF) radio or other means,
such as satellite or terrestrial relays, data communications, internet-based systems, etc. Some options
may involve reliance on third-party service providers. Whatever the ATC communication solution, it
must be transparent to the controllers to maintain consistency with manned aircraft communications.
Additionally, if alternative communications systems are used, the system should accommodate a
transmission to and from the reception of the existing voice communications to facilitate shared
awareness of communications to other airspace users.
Requirements for the communications system should align with ICAO’s required communication
performance (RCP) concept and related SARPs, procedures and guidance material.
2.5 System interfaces
Architectures for relaying information between ATC, navigation systems, surveillance systems, manned
aircraft, the RPA and its RPS may involve terrestrial, satellite, and airborne links (i.e. ATC voice and data
to remote pilots may be transmitted via ground telecommunications systems or relayed through the
RPA). These system interfaces must be interoperable, in terms of performance and functionality, to
ensure reliable, available, accurate, and consistent information exchanges.
New interfaces, such as a direct link from the RPS to ATC, are anticipated in some locations. These must
be non-disruptive for ATC. Figure 4 provides a generic illustration of system interfaces.
6 ICAO Manual on Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) (Doc 10019), section 10.4, 10.4.3.2 - Separation
provision or remain-well-clear (RWC) The separator or agent responsible for separation provision can be: a) the
corresponding ATC unit; or b) the airspace user, in which case the separation provision is referred to as RWC.
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
12
Figure 4 – System interfaces
2.6 Special considerations
2.6.1 Human performance
RPAS designs should ensure that the operating system and all associated components support human
performance. Personnel tasked with initiating, managing, and maintaining and operating RPAS must
have sufficient information to make safe, accurate, and timely decisions and to take appropriate actions.
They must be suitably qualified and experienced in performing their duties.
2.6.2 Automation and human intervention
All system designs must ensure that the responsibility and liability for safe operation is retained by the
operator and their flight crew. Remote pilots must be able to override or modify automated functions,
except where such actions cannot be executed safely due to immediacy of the situation (such as an
imminent collision avoidance manoeuvre) or where task complexity makes human intervention
unreasonable.
2.6.3 Categorization of RPA
Categories of aircraft are useful for airworthiness certification, air traffic management, operations and
pilot licensing. RPA share many attributes of manned aircraft but also have unique considerations to be
taken into account in defining categorization schemes, such as damage potential (e.g., kinetic energy)
and degree of on-board automation. Once defined, these categories will facilitate the articulation of
system design criteria, standards, and limitations.
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
13
3 Airworthiness
Airworthiness is a determination of an aircraft’s suitability for safe flight. In the case of RPA,
airworthiness takes into consideration all components of the system needed for operational safety, i.e.
the RPA, RPS(s), and C2 Link system(s). Airworthiness certification takes into account system
configuration, usage, environment, and the hardware and software of the entire system. It also
considers design characteristics, production processes, interoperability, reliability, and in-service
maintenance procedures that adequately mitigate safety risks. Technical standards may be used to
certify specific components of the RPAS.
3.1 General provisions
General provisions of airworthiness stipulate that:
• An RPA conducting international operations must have a certificate of airworthiness issued in
accordance with the national regulations and in a manner consistent with Annex 8 —
Airworthiness of Aircraft7
.
• An RPA conducting international operations must hold a type design approval in the form of a
type certificate issued by the aviation safety regulator of the State of Design of the RPA (which
may include the RPS).
• The RPS may hold a type design approval in the form of a type certificate (or supplemental type
certificate) issued by the aviation safety regulator of the RPS of State of Design.
• The State of Design of an RPS may be different from the State of Design of the RPA.
3.2 Special airworthiness considerations
3.2.1 RPAS classifications
For this CONOPS, RPAS are not classified based on any physical configuration, size, or performance
attributes. All RPA capable of international flight are considered viable provided they meet the minimum
equipage and performance requirements for the airspace where they intend to operate. At a high level,
this approach is acceptable. However, practical assessment of RPAS designs will likely require a riskbased classification scheme that accounts for the designs, degree of potential harm, operational intent,
and operating environments.
3.2.2 Airworthiness and C2 Link service providers
When components of a C2 Link are provided by third parties, assurance of safety requirements of the
link fall under the CAA and/or other competent authority of a State. Alternatively, an RPAS operator
may be responsible for ensuring that each contracted service provider and C2 Link service provision is in
7 Refer also to ICAO Annex 2, Appendix 4, 2.1 a).
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
14
accordance with the safety management system approved by the State of the Operator. In all cases,
assurances must be made that end-to-end requirements are achieved and maintained.
3.2.3 Airworthiness approval and oversight
Determining the airworthiness approvals and ensuring adequate oversight of RPAS will be challenging
due to rapidly evolving changes in technology, including hardware, software and its pedigree,
distributed architectures, novel designs, and dependence on service provisions. To facilitate approvals
and oversight, authorities and manufacturers will be helped by the establishment of agreed technical
standards, safety metrics, and testing methodologies. Also needed will be appropriate guidance material
and training for approval authorities or their designated representatives on the latest technologies and
techniques used in the design, manufacturing, and hardware and software developments of RPAS.
The distributed nature of the RPAS also provides opportunities to apply different levels of assurance
processes to the constituent elements. Full airworthiness assurance of the RPA is clearly necessary, but
alternate methods may be more proportionate to other components of the RPAS. This may require new
or amended processes appropriate to the potential safety risk concerns.
4 RPAS operations
RPAS operating internationally must comply with the framework regulations and requirements defined
under the Convention on International Civil Aviation. At the highest level, this means the:
• RPAS operator must have obtained special authorization from all affected States;
• RPA must be so controlled as to obviate danger to civil aircraft;
• RPAS operators must hold an RPAS operator certificate;
• RPA must hold a valid certificate of airworthiness, issued against the approved type design (as
recorded in the type certificate);
• RPA must meet the communications, navigations and surveillance (CNS) requirements for the
airspace in which it flies;
• flight crew (remote pilot(s)) must hold valid licences appropriate to the RPA and RPS;
• the flight plan must comply with the conditions in Annex 2 — Rules of the Air, Chapter 3, 3.3;
and
• RPAS must meet the DAA capability requirements for the airspace in which it flies and the
operations to be performed.
Additionally, RPAS operations will require approvals encompassing the processes, manuals, procedures,
and safety management systems applicable to the organization, its staff, and methods of operation.
Although similar in arrangement to manned operators, distinctions will exist in the information recorded
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
15
in this approval document. The distinctions will primarily pertain to the types and methods of flights
permitted.
4.1.1 Aerodrome surface operations
On the aerodrome surface, RPAS will interact with ATC much the same as manned operations. Remote
pilots will request permission to taxi, report aerodrome hazards, and accept clearances and instructions
concerning surface movement. Upon request, remote pilots will receive ATC clearance information. The
clearance may be loaded to RPAS automation or carried out manually by the remote pilot-in-command
(PIC) or ground support personnel overseen by the remote PIC.
When taxiing on the surface, RPA will need to be capable of identifying and avoiding surface hazards
(e.g., vehicles), adhering to ATC movement clearances, and abiding by all aerodrome signage and
markings unless alternate methods are developed and agreed upon.
4.1.2 RPA landing
RPA may land similar to manned aircraft including the sub-phases from flare to the landing roll and/or
aborted landing. However, some types of RPA may also employ non-conventional means of
landing/recovery, such as the use of a cable or parachute, inducing a deep stall, or other methods. This
may lead to a need to define landing/recovery areas that are not part of the formal runway/taxiway
infrastructure.
4.1.3 Future operations
Types of operations expected in 2030 (see Footnote 4) will range from local national flights under a
single operator, to dynamic and complex operations involving operators, flight crew members, and
service providers based in multiple States. Fundamental to all future operations will be the requirement
to abide by ICAO provisions and State regulations for the States being overflown.
4.2 Operators
RPAS operators are defined as any individual, organization, or enterprise engaged in RPAS operations.
“RPAS operators” encompasses all commercial and private entities regardless of whether their RPA are
flown for air transport, general aviation, or aerial work8 purposes. Within this context, operators may
represent individuals operating a single RPA, or large and sophisticated commercial entities engaged in
global commerce. No distinctions are made within this CONOPS as to types of operators nor the
operational nature of the RPAS service.
All operators that undertake operations in international airspace must hold an RPAS operator certificate
and must comply with the requirements of the operational approval issued by the State of the Operator,
including safety management system requirements.
8 ICAO Annex 6 — Operation of Aircraft, Parts I, II and III exclude consideration of aerial work for manned
operations.
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
16
Operators of RPAS will be responsible for ensuring:
• airworthiness of the RPA;
• C2 Link services used during an operation meet appropriate performance requirements;
• flight crew members required for safety of flight are qualified and competent in their duties;
• arrangements with contractual entities (e.g. service providers) involved in the conduct of
flight operations are appropriate;
• required records are established, managed and stored appropriately;
• compliance with all requirements established by the State of the Operator regarding its
operation; and
• compliance with all international standards and ATM instructions.
4.2.1 Safety management
Understanding the risks of these future operations as well as the foreseeable introduction of new
technologies and operations make adherence to sound safety management principles more important
than ever. Therefore, the implementation of safety management principles by RPAS operators will
contribute to the ability of assessing the safety risks associated with the RPAS operations and their
potential impact on other service providers. The safety management system of an RPAS operator should
be commensurate with the scope of the RPAS operator and the scale and complexity of its operations.
Proper oversight of the implementation of safety management principles by RPAS operators will
contribute to the ability of a State to effectively manage aviation safety.
4.3 Flight trajectories
Operational flight trajectories of RPAS will depend on the mission objectives, C2 Link coverage limits,
restrictions imposed by IFR, and RPAS capabilities and equipage. It is envisioned that RPAS operational
trajectories will not require segregation from other airspace users.
4.3.1 Point-to-point trajectories
The vast majority of international operations conducted by manned aircraft are point A to point B
flights, typically flown to and from aerodromes, RPA offer the potential for increased point A to point A
operations, for example, transit to distant operational areas and subsequent return to point of origin.
Point-to-point operations in the international context may, due to assumed similarities in mission
objectives of manned aircraft, mimic those operations in terms of flight planning and routes flown.
4.3.2 Defined trajectories
RPA may conform to defined operational trajectories whereby regular, predictive patterns are flown
within a known duration. Defined operations are typical of surveillance or other missions where a
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
17
particular, fixed geographic area is covered. These operations may challenge ATM integration in or near
high-traffic densities, but otherwise could be managed routinely through preflight planning,
coordination, and the use of airspace.
4.3.3 Dynamic trajectories
RPA may fly dynamic operational trajectories in which their flight path, altitudes, or duration could
require blocking airspace and may be difficult to accurately predict beforehand. Examples of dynamic
trajectories include tracking wildlife or monitoring an area of interest such as a wildfire for an indefinite
period. Some of the variability in a dynamic trajectory may also be a characteristic of the RPAS design
itself, such as when altitudes cannot be maintained predictably due to aircraft designs that account for
air density to manage airspeed. Manned aircraft would typically fly dynamic trajectories under VFR,
though IFR may be accommodated depending on traffic levels, desired altitude, weather conditions,
surveillance coverage and the ability of ATC to dynamically block airspace.
Figure 5 – International operational flight trajectories
Figure 5 depicts point-to-point and aerial work (dynamic and defined) operations over territorial and
high-seas international airspace.
4.4 Operational planning
4.4.1 RPAS operators
The RPAS operator should establish procedures to ensure a seamless operation throughout the duration
of the flight, including remote pilots who can carry out the responsibilities for the different phases of the
flight, such as take-off, climb, cruise, approach and landing, all of which should be included in the
operations manual and which should be provided for the use and guidance of the RPAS operations
personnel concerned. RPA will need to adhere to air traffic flow management (ATFM) initiatives, make
all necessary reports to ATC and comply with ATC instructions, as required.
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
18
4.4.2 Air traffic management
ATC interactions in different phases of the flight should be the same as with manned aviation. Remote
pilots will need to communicate with ATC via voice or data communications.
4.4.3 Flight planning
As in the case of manned aircraft, a flight plan must be submitted for the flight of an RPA in accordance
with Annex 2, Chapter 3, in particular, prior to operating across international borders. The flight plan
must comply with the conditions in Annex 2, 3.3, and contain all relevant information specified in
Annex 2, 3.3.2. Each State in which the flight is to operate may require additional information related to
the planned operation of the RPA. Flight and flow for a collaborative environment (FF-ICE9
) will contain
the necessary information to support RPAS operations. Each State in which the flight is to operate may
require additional information related to the planned operation of the RPA.
ANSPs or other responsible bodies review, accept, and modify submitted flight plans based on the
timing, requested route, and any unique considerations associated with the aircraft, equipage, cargo,
route or contingency procedures. For RPAS, ATM automation may be enhanced to enable approval or
modification of route requests and recognition of user requests for off-nominal volumes of airspace. Any
amended flight plan should be sent to the operator for concurrence or negotiation. Until such time as
standardized procedures are established, the ANSP should be provided with, and approve the
contingency plans for each IFR RPAS flight plan prior to the operation in case a contingency condition
occurs.
4.5 Special considerations
4.5.1 Defining and managing international flight
International operations have traditionally been defined as when aircraft cross State boundaries or
operate over the high seas. Unique to RPAS is the possibility that the RPA could conduct its full flight in
the airspace of one State while the RPS is located in a different State. The remote flight crew members,
support personnel, and third-party service providers may also be distributed and transferred among
multiple States. The unique aspects of highly distributed international operations present challenges in
managing the operations, airworthiness certification, personnel licensing, security and accident
investigation as well as legal issues of jurisdiction and enforcement.
4.5.2 Delegated separation
In airspace where ATC provides separation services between participating aircraft, ATC procedures,
flight crew procedures and aircraft equipage requirements already exist to maintain safe separation. It is
anticipated that RPA may have the capability to separate themselves from some aircraft.
9 FF-ICE is the evolution from the flight plan (FPL) as we know it today, human readable only, to a machine
readable system which will allow the flexibility for inclusion of any relevant information regarding a flight and/or
the flow of traffic. It will contain core elements as part of the flight information exchange model (FIXM) used for its
transmission and extensions to allow regional requirements to be also informed.
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
19
4.5.3 In-flight handover between remote pilot stations (RPS)
Unlike in manned aviation where the cockpit is integral to the aircraft, RPA can be piloted from any
approved RPS. When more than one RPS is used for a flight, they may be collocated or they may be
spread across the globe. In either case, the safe and effective handover of piloting control from one
station to another must be assured.
4.5.4 In-flight transfer of C2 Link service providers
Transfer between C2 Link service providers may be permitted but would need to be confirmed by the
remote PIC prior to transfer. Notification to ATC of a C2 Link service provider transfer would not be
anticipated.
4.5.5 In-flight transfer of operators
It is envisioned that situations may exist where the operator could change mid-flight due to a
contractual arrangement. Such a transfer would not necessarily be known to ATC, except in the flight
plan. Otherwise, only the remote flight crew members would be made aware of the transfer to ensure
communication with the appropriate flight operations and dispatcher support. In transferring operators,
the responsibility for operational control would likely also transfer to the receiving operator.
4.5.6 Emergency and contingency operations
RPAS operations must include provisions for emergency and contingency situations that may arise
during any phase of flight. Emergency and contingency procedures must be standardized to the greatest
extent possible to allow predictable and safe mitigations to be planned.
Voice communications failure procedures may be slightly different for RPAS, as the remote pilot may
have additional methods to communicate with ATC.
In the event an alternative procedure is planned, the RPAS operator should coordinate with, and obtain
approval from, the ANSP prior to departure to assure ATM requirements will be met.
Emergency or contingency procedures should be standardized and published. To the extent possible,
emergency and contingency procedures may be included in the flight plan during the transition period
from accommodation to integration. This is particularly the case in lost C2 Link, inadequate C2 Link
performance or loss of propulsion conditions where the remote pilot would have no or limited direct
control of the RPA.
Any pre-programmed emergency or contingency procedures should ensure a safe response by the RPA.
4.5.7 Flight data recording
Adequate recording of RPAS operations will be required to support accident and incident investigations
as well as for flight data analysis.
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
20
Data from RPAS operations and systems, both at the RPA and the RPS, should be recorded and
maintained to facilitate ongoing safety assurance analyses, and to be made available for accident
investigations.
5 Personnel licensing
All RPAS personnel responsible for safety of flight must be knowledgeable, trained, experienced and
otherwise qualified in their respective duties. These qualifying requirements are manifest in personnel
licences issued by the Licensing Authority.
5.1 Remote pilot
Remote pilots are required to receive medical certification, complete training, and demonstrate
competency before being licensed to fly. The training requirements and degree of competency required
depends upon the complexity of the RPA being flown and the purpose of flight. Requirements for
smaller, less complex aircraft flown privately should be less strenuous than the requirements for remote
pilots flying large, complex RPA in high-density airspace.
5.1.1 General remote pilot licensing provisions
All remote pilots should possess knowledge of aviation rules, regulations, and procedures. However,
remote pilot certification qualifications may differ based on the RPA type, size or operational
environment.
All remote pilots conducting international IFR operations must possess a remote pilot licence. The
Licensing Authority of the State where the RPS is located will issue, renew, or validate remote pilot
licences for qualified applicants.
The holder of a remote pilot licence and associated ratings and endorsements must not exercise the
privileges beyond those issued, and must maintain the validity of their licence as required by the issuing
authority.
5.1.2 Credit for prior experience
Military remote pilots and experienced pilots of manned aircraft may receive credit for their
documented training and experience when applying for a remote pilot licence. This credit should only be
applied where deemed comparable to the RPA licensing and rating requirements.
5.1.3 Class and type ratings
Different categories of RPA and RPS may, as considered necessary by the competent authority, require a
class or type rating on the remote pilot licence. Class ratings pertain to systems having comparable
handling and performance characteristics. Type ratings refer to systems requiring additional training
beyond the initial licence or RPA class rating, for instance where operation of the RPAS requires a
minimum of two remote pilots.
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
21
5.1.4 RPA category
This CONOPS does not address RPA categories (e.g. fixed-wing, rotorcraft, airship); it is expected that a
single remote pilot licence which covers all types of scenarios will be implemented. This licence will be
annotated with specific ratings, limitations and endorsements, as appropriate.
5.2 Remote pilot instructors
Instructors of remote pilots must, in addition to meeting the requirements for holding a remote pilot
licence, receive training and have passed an assessment of competency in relevant RPA, RPS and
applicable rating(s).
5.3 Remote pilot licence (RPL) examiners
RPL examiners must have demonstrated that they possess the competencies for RPL examiners and hold
the qualifications to provide instruction for RPL training.
5.4 RPAS maintenance personnel
Knowledge and skills for RPAS maintenance personnel will be based on the RPA, RPS or other
components of the RPAS where maintenance is required. Many of the basic qualifying requirements
may be based on existing manned aircraft, whereas others may require specialized training and
competency specific to the RPAS.
Specialized training may need to address maintenance during a flight.
5.5 Air traffic controllers
The introduction of RPAS may result in new ATC procedures, techniques and tools. These changes will
require additional training for air traffic controllers but should not affect their licensing requirements.
6 Operating environments
RPA on IFR flight plans can be expected to transit all classes of airspace, cross international borders, and
operate to and from both controlled and uncontrolled aerodromes. Unique RPAS capabilities may also
allow for launch and recovery at locations other than traditional aerodromes.
6.1 International airspace rules and procedures
All aircraft flying within the territorial airspace of a State must abide by the airspace regulations and
procedures of that State. States generally form their regulations and procedures in accordance with
ICAO SARPs, while maintaining the right to file differences and apply their own rules and procedures
within their territorial airspace. Unlike manned aircraft, RPAS operators must obtain special
authorization prior to operating in territorial airspace of a State. This authorization may include specific
permissions or limitations that must be complied with.
ICAO RPAS Concept of Operations
22
6.2 Airspace requirements and RPAS capabilities
RPAS must be able to comply with the requirements of the class of airspace in which they are operating.
This requirement is inclusive of both equipage and operational parameters (e.g. transponder, two-way
communications with ATC, etc.). As an IFR operation, RPA should be capable of flying the published
instrument departure and arrival procedures, unless alternatives are agreed upon with the appropriate
authority. RPAS will need to be equipped and have the required operational approvals in terms of
required navigation performance (RNP), RCP and required surveillance performance (RSP) as required
by the airspace within which they plan to operate. Development of separate, specialized procedures at
established aerodromes should be minimized and still require agreement between all relevant parties.
This includes ground manoeuvres where, for example, RPA will be expected to conform to existing
systems, processes and procedures. This also includes such aspects as the capability to detect and
respond to visual signs and markings.
Note. — See 4.5.6 for emergency and contingency operations.
6.3 RPAS performance limitations
The performance characteristics of certain RPA may not be typical of that for manned aircraft; air traffic
controllers may need to accommodate a wider range of capabilities. Traditionally, controllers have
safely managed occasional flights that do not match the operational capabilities of the typical fleet mix
within their area of responsibility. Examples include accommodating experimental aircraft, historical
aircraft, and newly certificated aircraft types. RPA variations in airspeed, turn radius, and climb or
descent rates may require special handling. In small numbers, the impact on capacity and efficiency of
the airspace can be minimized through pre-coordination with the ATC unit.
—END—
