DOCSLIB.ORG

Remotely Piloted Air Systems – Current and Future UK Use

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Remotely Piloted Air Systems – Current and Future UK Use House of Commons Defence Committee Remote Control: Remotely Piloted Air Systems – current and future UK use Tenth Report of Session 2013–14 Volume II Written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be published 11 March 2014 Published on 25 March 2014 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited The Defence Committee The Defence Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Ministry of Defence and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP (Conservative, North East Hampshire) (Chair) Mr Julian Brazier MP (Conservative, Canterbury) Mr James Gray MP (Conservative, North Wiltshire) Rt Hon Jeffrey M. Donaldson MP (Democratic Unionist, Lagan Valley) Mr Dai Havard MP (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) Adam Holloway MP (Conservative, Gravesham) Mrs Madeleine Moon MP (Labour, Bridgend) Sir Bob Russell MP (Liberal Democrat, Colchester) Bob Stewart MP (Conservative, Beckenham) Ms Gisela Stuart MP (Labour, Birmingham, Edgbaston) Derek Twigg MP (Labour, Halton) John Woodcock MP (Labour/Co-op, Barrow and Furness) The following Members were also members of the Committee during this inquiry. Thomas Docherty MP (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife) Penny Mordaunt MP (Conservative, Portsmouth North) Sandra Osborne MP (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/parliament.uk/defcom. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume. Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are James Rhys (Clerk), Dougie Wands (Second Clerk), Karen Jackson (Audit Adviser), Ian Thomson (Committee Specialist), Christine Randall (Senior Committee Assistant), Rowena Macdonald and Carolyn Bowes (Committee Assistants). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Defence Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 5745; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]. Media inquiries should be addressed to Alex Paterson on 020 7219 1589. List of written evidence (published in Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/defcom) 1 Ministry of Defence Ev w1 2 Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) Ev w11 3 The Baptist Union of Great Britain, The Methodist Church and The United Reform Church Ev w14 4 Thales UK Ev w20 5 ADS Ev w24 6 James Earle on behalf of the Association of Military Court Advocates Ev w26 7 Bureau of Investigative Journalism Ev w31 8 Network for Social Change Ev w37 9 Northrop Grumman Corporation (NGC) Ev w40 10 Dr David Goldberg Ev w46 11 Drone Wars UK Ev w50 12 Royal Aeronautical Society Ev w51 13 Defence Synergia Ev w56 14 Research Councils UK (RCUK) Ev w60 15 All Party Parliamentary Group on drones Ev w70 16 Public Interest Lawyers on behalf of Peacerights Ev w79 17 General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems United Kingdom Ltd (GA-UK) Ev w99 18 Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham Ev w107 19 MBDA UK Ltd Ev w117 20 Reprieve Ev w117 21 Professor Nicholas Wheeler, Institute for Conflict, Co-operation and Security, University of Birmingham Ev w124 Defence Committee: Evidence Ev w1 Written evidence Written evidence from the Ministry of Defence 1. Introduction 1.1 This memorandum provides written evidence for the House of Commons Defence Committee’s Inquiry into Remotely Piloted Air Systems—current and future use. 1.2 Drawing on the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) experience of owning and operating these systems, it will examine: — Nomenclature—defining associated terms. — Current use and Dispersal—explaining what the MOD uses these systems for and where? — Lessons on their use from Afghanistan. — Tomorrow’s Potential—detailing MOD plans for their development. — Constraints—commenting on constraints imposed by Airspace Regulation and the environment. — Legal and Ethical issues. 2. Nomenclature—Defining what is meant by the Terms Remotely Piloted Air Systems (RPAS), Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Associated Terms 2.1 The origins of unmanned aircraft can be traced back to the First World War. But the last decade has seen extraordinary development and rapid progress in unmanned aircraft technology and capability. Much of the original terminology has, as a result, become outdated and manufacturers and operators have created a new descriptive language for the aircraft, their capabilities and consequent issues. As systems have matured, there is also an increasing requirement for standardised terminology. 2.2 To help avoid confusion and prevent misunderstanding, in 2010 and 2011, the MOD produced Joint Doctrine Note (JDN) JDN 3/10—Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS): Terminology, Definitions & Classification and JDN 2/11—The UK Approach to UAS. These documents outline the standard UK military terminology and classification to be used when describing UAS within UK Defence and when working with NATO and other international partners. UK based academia and industry are encouraged to adopt the standard to improve interoperability. Both JDNs are in the public domain and can be accessed through the Defence section of www.gov.uk. 2.3 The term Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) had previously been used extensively in the UK. But it is no longer aligned with NATO thinking and, in the interests of interoperability, UAV should now be considered a legacy term. A recent NATO Joint Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Panel was tasked to re-examine unmanned aircraft related terminology from first principles and to make recommendations on the way ahead; JDNs 2/11 & 3/10 largely reflect the outcome of that discussion and subsequent recommendations. 2.4 The following are terms defined in JDNs 2/11 & 3/10: 2.5 Unmanned Aircraft (UA) An Unmanned Aircraft (sometimes abbreviated to UA) is defined as an aircraft that does not carry a human operator… 2.6 Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) An Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) is defined as a system, whose components include the unmanned aircraft and all equipment, network and personnel necessary to control the unmanned aircraft. 2.7 UAS is the generic term that defines the totality of the components of an unmanned aircraft, together with the other necessary components including all equipment, networks and personnel. The MOD operate a range of UAS principally for surveillance and reconnaissance purposes. 2.8 Although UAS is the preferred term in a military environment, there are occasions when such a generic term is unhelpful. The term “unmanned” can cause confusion or uncertainty over the actual level of human control and has led to safety, ethical and legal concerns being raised, particularly with regard to the employment of weapons and flight in non-segregated airspace. These concerns can be addressed in part by using terminology that better describes the level of human control of such aircraft as being equivalent to that of piloted aircraft; the pilot is simply physically remote from the aircraft itself. Consequently, the MOD believes it is more appropriate to use the term Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) to describe such aircraft, and Remotely Piloted Air(craft) System (RPAS) to describe the entirety of that which it takes to deliver the overall capability. 2.9 Remotely Piloted Aircraft A Remotely Piloted Aircraft is defined as an aircraft that, whilst it does not carry a human operator, is flown remotely by a pilot, is normally recoverable, and can carry a lethal or non-lethal payload. Ev w2 Defence Committee: Evidence 2.10 Remotely Piloted Air(craft) System (RPAS) A Remotely Piloted Air(craft) System is the sum of the components required to deliver the overall capability and includes the Pilot, Sensor Operators (if applicable), RPA, Ground Control Station, associated manpower and support systems, Satellite Communication links and Data Links. 2.11 RPAS is thus a specific class of UAS. It is appropriate to use the term RPAS to emphasise the reality that a trained professional pilot is in control of the system. Of note, the critical legislative aviation authorities, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the European Aviation Safety Agency use the term RPAS. 2.12 Unmanned Combat Aircraft System (UCAS): UCAS is a proposed class of UAS with offensive and defensive capabilities on a par with current manned systems to allow them to operate in contested airspace when necessary. Such a capability does not yet exist. 2.13 Automation and Autonomy. There is often a misconception that UAS are autonomous systems. This is not true as there is always a human involved in the decision making process. Industry and academia often discuss automation and autonomy interchangeably, referring to technology research for all types of UAS. There are no universally agreed definitions. But the MOD defines autonomy as a machine’s ability to understand higher level intent, being capable of deciding a course of action without depending on human oversight and control. Automation refers to a system that is programmed to logically follow a pre-defined set of rules with predictable outcomes, such as an automatic landing system. Improving capability can include automating part of a process to make the remote Pilot or operator’s job easier. But current UK policy is that the operation of weapon systems will always be under human control. No planned offensive systems are to have the capability to prosecute targets without involving a human.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Could Uavs Improve New Zealand's Maritime Security?
    Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. Could UAVs improve New Zealand’s Maritime Security? 149.800 Master of Philosophy Thesis Massey University Centre for Defence Studies Supervisor: Dr John Moremon By: Brian Oliver Due date: 28 Feb 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ......................................................................................... iv Glossary .................................................................................................. v Abstract ................................................................................................ viii Introduction ............................................................................................ 1 Chapter 1: New Zealand's Maritime Environment ................................. 6 The Political Backdrop .................................................................... 10 Findings of the Maritime Patrol Review .......................................... 12 Maritime Forces Review ................................................................. 18 The current state of maritime surveillance ..................................... 19 The National Maritime Coordination Centre ................................... 23 Chapter 2: The Value of New Zealand's Maritime Environment ......... 29 Oil and gas production in New Zealand ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict in 2020 on the Perception of Combat Drones Serbian Journal of Engineering Management Vol
    Ilić, D. et al. The impact of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in 2020 on the perception of combat drones Serbian Journal of Engineering Management Vol. 6, No. 1, 2021 Original Scientific Paper/Originalni naučni rad UDC/UDK: 623.746.2-519:005.52 Paper Accepted/Rad prihvaćen: 29. 1. 2021. 355.469.1(479.243)"2020" doi: 10.5937/SJEM2101009I Uticaj sukoba u Nagorno-Karabahu 2020. na percepciju borbenih dronova 1* 1 Damir Ilić , Vladimir Tomašević 1*“University “Union – Nikola Tesla”, School of Engineering Management, Belgrade, Serbia, [email protected] 1Univerzitet „Union-Nikola Tesla“, Fakultet za inženjerski menadžment, Bulevar vojvode Mišića 43, [email protected] Apstrakt: Upotreba borbenih dronova je aktuelna više od jednog veka. Tek poslednjih godina smo svedoci kako se evolutivni proces sa napretkom tehnologije pretvorio u pravu revoluciju. Sukob u Nagorno-Karabahu 2020, predstavljao je jednu od prekretnica u pogledu primene ove distruptivne tehnologije u borbene svrhe. Kao nikada do sada masovna upotreba borbenih dronova nije presudno uticala na ishod jednog konflikta. Zbog značaja koji pomenuti sukob predstavlja izvršena je SWOT analiza mogućnosti primene borbenih dronova u lokalnim konfliktima. Izvedeni zaključci mogu pomoći kako u razumevanju ishoda sukoba tako i u definisanju pravca kojim će se kretati dalja primena ovih borbenih sistema u budućnosti. Keywords: UCAV, Nagorno-Karabakh, konflikt, SWOT The impact of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in 2020 on the perception of combat drones Abstract: The use of combat drones has been existing for more than a century. Only in recent years have we witnessed how the evolutionary process with the advancement of technology has turned into a real revolution.
    [Show full text]
  • 2006-2007 Wisconsin Junior Open/Open Crosstable Page 1 UW-Oshkosh November 4-5, 2006
    2006-2007 Wisconsin Junior Open/Open Crosstable Page 1 UW-Oshkosh November 4-5, 2006 No. Name ID Team Rate Pts TBrk1 TBrk2 TBrk3 TBrk4 Rnd1 Rnd2 Rnd3 Rnd4 Rnd5 1 Luo, Brian J 12910173 Madisn 2024 5.0 16.0 15.0 54.0 32.0 W27 W13 W17 W9 W3 2 Mckinney, Christop 12934651 1772 4.5 16.0 14.5 52.0 28.0 W30 W33 W6 W10 D8 3 Yusim, Sergey 12852542 4.0 19.0 14.0 58.0 28.0 W12 W29 W5 W4 L1 4 Bell, Samuel W 21014944 Madisn 1663 4.0 15.0 13.0 51.0 22.0 W22 W35 W16 L3 W14 5 Brown Jr, Christop 12849430 GlenNi 1501 4.0 14.5 12.0 46.0 21.0 W31 W34 L3 W21 W16 6 Webne-Behrman, Ger 12901591 Madisn 1437 4.0 14.5 12.0 43.5 20.0 W43 W36 L2 W19 W13 7 Hintz, Timothy M 12752556 Marion 1545 4.0 13.5 12.0 44.5 20.0 W37 W19 L10 W33 W25 8 Bowen, John Armbru 12779264 USM 1596 4.0 13.5 11.5 42.0 22.5 -H- W26 W15 W14 D2 9 Her, Sou 12805616 MSL 1687 3.5 16.5 12.5 51.0 19.5 W44 W21 W18 L1 D10 10 Bowen, James H 12786949 USM 1278 3.5 14.0 12.5 45.0 15.5 W53 W49 W7 L2 D9 11 Miller, Joshua D 12871494 Marion 1516 3.5 13.5 10.0 44.5 18.0 W38 D15 L14 W24 W29 12 Dumke, Nathan C 12849428 Marion 1227 3.5 13.5 9.0 43.0 16.0 L3 W41 W34 D18 W27 13 Clausing, Michael 12864685 1254 3.0 17.0 10.0 50.0 16.0 W24 L1 W38 W20 L6 14 Wang, Xiaoming Tim 12976014 MadJf 1254 3.0 16.5 12.0 47.5 17.0 W40 W20 W11 L8 L4 15 Lancour, Daniel 12859342 JanesP 1158 3.0 16.0 9.5 46.5 17.5 W23 D11 L8 W28 D18 16 Ghose, Saptarshi 12870578 USM 1271 3.0 14.5 11.0 42.5 13.0 W45 W28 L4 W39 L5 17 Gallenberg, Bob 12779870 1436 3.0 13.5 10.0 41.5 11.0 W41 W46 L1 L25 W37 18 Petrashek, Casey D 12911815 Madisn 1427 3.0 13.0
    [Show full text]
  • Bell 429 Product Specifications
    BELL 429 SPECIFICATIONS BELL 429 SPECIFICATIONS Publisher’s Notice The information herein is general in nature and may vary with conditions. Individuals using this information must exercise their independent judgment in evaluating product selection and determining product appropriateness for their particular purpose and requirements. For performance data and operating limitations for any specific mission, reference must be made to the approved flight manual. Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. makes no representations or warranties, either expressed or implied, including without limitation any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose with respect to the information set forth herein or the product(s) and service(s) to which the information refers. Accordingly, Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. will not be responsible for damages (of any kind or nature, including incidental, direct, indirect, or consequential damages) resulting from the use of or reliance on this information. Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. reserves the right to change product designs and specifications without notice. © 2019 Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. All registered trademarks are the property of their respective owners. FEBRUARY 2019 © 2019 Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. Specifications subject to change without notice. i BELL 429 SPECIFICATIONS Table of Contents Bell 429 ..................................................................................................................................1 Bell 429 Specification Summary (U.S. Units) ........................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Heater Element Specifications Bulletin Number 592
    Technical Data Heater Element Specifications Bulletin Number 592 Topic Page Description 2 Heater Element Selection Procedure 2 Index to Heater Element Selection Tables 5 Heater Element Selection Tables 6 Additional Resources These documents contain additional information concerning related products from Rockwell Automation. Resource Description Industrial Automation Wiring and Grounding Guidelines, publication 1770-4.1 Provides general guidelines for installing a Rockwell Automation industrial system. Product Certifications website, http://www.ab.com Provides declarations of conformity, certificates, and other certification details. You can view or download publications at http://www.rockwellautomation.com/literature/. To order paper copies of technical documentation, contact your local Allen-Bradley distributor or Rockwell Automation sales representative. For Application on Bulletin 100/500/609/1200 Line Starters Heater Element Specifications Eutectic Alloy Overload Relay Heater Elements Type J — CLASS 10 Type P — CLASS 20 (Bul. 600 ONLY) Type W — CLASS 20 Type WL — CLASS 30 Note: Heater Element Type W/WL does not currently meet the material Type W Heater Elements restrictions related to EU ROHS Description The following is for motors rated for Continuous Duty: For motors with marked service factor of not less than 1.15, or Overload Relay Class Designation motors with a marked temperature rise not over +40 °C United States Industry Standards (NEMA ICS 2 Part 4) designate an (+104 °F), apply application rules 1 through 3. Apply application overload relay by a class number indicating the maximum time in rules 2 and 3 when the temperature difference does not exceed seconds at which it will trip when carrying a current equal to 600 +10 °C (+18 °F).
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of the Equivalent Level of Safety Requirements for Small Uavs
    ASSESSMENT OF THE EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES by © Jonathan D. Stevenson, B.Eng., M.Eng. A Doctoral Thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science Memorial University of Newfoundland June 2015 St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador ABSTRACT The research described in this thesis was a concentrated effort to assess the Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) of small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), in terms of the requirements needed for the small UAV to be considered at least as safe as equivalent manned aircraft operating in the same airspace. However, the concept of ELOS is often quoted without any scientific basis, or without proof that manned aircraft themselves could be considered safe. This is especially true when the recognized limitations of the see-and-avoid principle is considered, which has led to tragic consequences over the past several decades. The primary contribution of this research is an initial attempt to establish quantifiable standards related to the ELOS of small UAVs in non-segregated airspace. A secondary contribution is the development of an improved method for automatically testing Detect, Sense and Avoid (DSA) systems through the use of two UAVs flying a synchronized aerial maneuver algorithm. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author was supported financially through the National Sciences and Research Council of Canada, including the generous granting of a Canadian Graduate Scholarship. RAVEN flight operations of the Aerosonde UAV would not have been possible without the financial support from the Atlantic Canada Opportunity Agency and our industrial partner, Provincial Aerospace Limited (PAL).
    [Show full text]
  • Can Technology Protect Airplanes from the New
    CANDRONES TECHNOLOGY PROTECT AIRPLANES FROM THE IN NEW THREAT? A BUSY SKY IT’S EXACTLY 3:45 A.M. on a blustery and unseasonably cold Tuesday morning in May when an armed How can we military guard wearing a bulletproof vest waves me through the west entrance of Edwards Air Force ensure drones Base. On a typical weekday at this hour, almost everyone here would be asleep. But this isn’t a typical don’t collide with weekday. I’m in a briefing room with some two dozen researchers—mostly aerospace and computer airliners? NASA software engineers, along with three Air Force pilots certified to fly drones—at NASA’s Armstrong Flight and the FAA are Research Center, which is located on this Southern California mili- working to find BY MICHAEL BEHAR tary base. We’re guzzling coffee and chomping doughnuts while Dan the best collision Sternberg, a NASA operations engineer and former F/A-18 Hornet test avoidance pilot, leads the meeting, ticking through the day’s flight plan. systems for UAVs The Armstrong team is here to evaluate how so-called “detect-and-avoid” technologies designed for in the United collision avoidance can prevent drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), from smashing into other States, soon to aircraft. Today’s schedule involves a series of 24 head-on passes—when two aircraft face off on a near-col- number in the PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY THÉO; DRONE: ALEXEY YUZHAKOV/SHUTTERSTOCK.COM; AIRLINER: KOSMOS111/SHUTTERSTOCK.COM YUZHAKOV/SHUTTERSTOCK.COM; THÉO; ALEXEY DRONE: BY ILLUSTRATION PHOTO lision course—between a General Atomics MQ-9 drone named Ikhana and two piloted, or “intruder” millions.
    [Show full text]
  • UK Armed Forces Personnel and the Legal Framework for Future Operations
    House of Commons Defence Committee UK Armed Forces Personnel and the Legal Framework for Future Operations Twelfth Report of Session 2013–14 Report, together with formal minutes and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 26 March 2014 HC 931 Published on 2 April 2014 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £17.50 The Defence Committee The Defence Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Ministry of Defence and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP (Conservative, North East Hampshire) (Chair) Mr Julian Brazier MP (Conservative, Canterbury) Rt Hon Jeffrey M. Donaldson MP (Democratic Unionist, Lagan Valley) Mr James Gray MP (Conservative, North Wiltshire) Mr Dai Havard MP (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) Adam Holloway MP (Conservative, Gravesham) Mrs Madeleine Moon MP (Labour, Bridgend) Sir Bob Russell MP (Liberal Democrat, Colchester) Bob Stewart MP (Conservative, Beckenham) Ms Gisela Stuart MP (Labour, Birmingham, Edgbaston) Derek Twigg MP (Labour, Halton) John Woodcock MP (Labour/Co-op, Barrow and Furness) The following Members were also members of the Committee during this inquiry. Thomas Docherty MP (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife) Penny Mordaunt MP (Conservative, Portsmouth North) Sandra Osborne MP (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • THE 422 Mps WHO BACKED the MOTION Conservative 1. Bim
    THE 422 MPs WHO BACKED THE MOTION Conservative 1. Bim Afolami 2. Peter Aldous 3. Edward Argar 4. Victoria Atkins 5. Harriett Baldwin 6. Steve Barclay 7. Henry Bellingham 8. Guto Bebb 9. Richard Benyon 10. Paul Beresford 11. Peter Bottomley 12. Andrew Bowie 13. Karen Bradley 14. Steve Brine 15. James Brokenshire 16. Robert Buckland 17. Alex Burghart 18. Alistair Burt 19. Alun Cairns 20. James Cartlidge 21. Alex Chalk 22. Jo Churchill 23. Greg Clark 24. Colin Clark 25. Ken Clarke 26. James Cleverly 27. Thérèse Coffey 28. Alberto Costa 29. Glyn Davies 30. Jonathan Djanogly 31. Leo Docherty 32. Oliver Dowden 33. David Duguid 34. Alan Duncan 35. Philip Dunne 36. Michael Ellis 37. Tobias Ellwood 38. Mark Field 39. Vicky Ford 40. Kevin Foster 41. Lucy Frazer 42. George Freeman 43. Mike Freer 44. Mark Garnier 45. David Gauke 46. Nick Gibb 47. John Glen 48. Robert Goodwill 49. Michael Gove 50. Luke Graham 51. Richard Graham 52. Bill Grant 53. Helen Grant 54. Damian Green 55. Justine Greening 56. Dominic Grieve 57. Sam Gyimah 58. Kirstene Hair 59. Luke Hall 60. Philip Hammond 61. Stephen Hammond 62. Matt Hancock 63. Richard Harrington 64. Simon Hart 65. Oliver Heald 66. Peter Heaton-Jones 67. Damian Hinds 68. Simon Hoare 69. George Hollingbery 70. Kevin Hollinrake 71. Nigel Huddleston 72. Jeremy Hunt 73. Nick Hurd 74. Alister Jack (Teller) 75. Margot James 76. Sajid Javid 77. Robert Jenrick 78. Jo Johnson 79. Andrew Jones 80. Gillian Keegan 81. Seema Kennedy 82. Stephen Kerr 83. Mark Lancaster 84.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights Annual Report 2005
    House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Human Rights Annual Report 2005 First Report of Session 2005–06 HC 574 House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Human Rights Annual Report 2005 First Report of Session 2005–06 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 15 February 2006 HC 574 Published on 23 February 2006 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 Foreign Affairs Committee The Foreign Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the administration, expenditure and policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its associated agencies. Current membership Mike Gapes (Labour, Ilford South), Chairman Mr Fabian Hamilton (Labour, Leeds North East) Rt Hon Mr David Heathcoat-Amory (Conservative, Wells) Mr John Horam (Conservative, Orpington) Mr Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central) Mr Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat, Hereford) Andrew Mackinlay (Labour, Thurrock) Mr John Maples (Conservative, Stratford-on-Avon) Sandra Osborne (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) Mr Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn) Mr Ken Purchase (Labour, Wolverhampton North East) Rt Hon Sir John Stanley (Conservative, Tonbridge and Malling) Ms Gisela Stuart (Labour, Birmingham Edgbaston) Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge) The following member was also a member of the committee during the parliament. Rt Hon Mr Andrew Mackay (Conservative, Bracknell) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Remote ID NPRM Maps out UAS Airspace Integration Plans by Charles Alcock
    PUBLICATIONS Vol.49 | No.2 $9.00 FEBRUARY 2020 | ainonline.com « Joby Aviation’s S4 eVTOL aircraft took a leap forward in the race to launch commercial service with a January 15 announcement of $590 million in new investment from a group led by Japanese car maker Toyota. Joby says it will have the piloted S4 flying as part of the Uber Air air taxi network in early adopter cities before the end of 2023, but it will surely take far longer to get clearance for autonomous eVTOL operations. (Full story on page 8) People HAI’s new president takes the reins page 14 Safety 2019 was a bad year for Part 91 page 12 Part 135 FAA has stern words for BlackBird page 22 Remote ID NPRM maps out UAS airspace integration plans by Charles Alcock Stakeholders have until March 2 to com- in planned urban air mobility applications. Read Our SPECIAL REPORT ment on proposed rules intended to provide The final rule resulting from NPRM FAA- a framework for integrating unmanned air- 2019-100 is expected to require remote craft systems (UAS) into the U.S. National identification for the majority of UAS, with Airspace System. On New Year’s Eve, the exceptions to be made for some amateur- EFB Hardware Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) pub- built UAS, aircraft operated by the U.S. gov- When it comes to electronic flight lished its long-awaited notice of proposed ernment, and UAS weighing less than 0.55 bags, (EFBs), most attention focuses on rulemaking (NPRM) for remote identifica- pounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study on the United Kingdom and Brexit Juliane Itta & Nicole Katsioulis the Female Face of Right-Wing Populism and Ex
    Triumph of The women? The Female Face of Right-wing Populism and Extremism 02 Case study on the United Kingdom and Brexit Juliane Itta & Nicole Katsioulis 01 Triumph of the women? The study series All over the world, right-wing populist parties continue to grow stronger, as has been the case for a number of years – a development that is male-dominated in most countries, with right-wing populists principally elected by men. However, a new generation of women is also active in right-wing populist parties and movements – forming the female face of right-wing populism, so to speak. At the same time, these parties are rapidly closing the gap when it comes to support from female voters – a new phenomenon, for it was long believed that women tend to be rather immune to right-wing political propositions. Which gender and family policies underpin this and which societal trends play a part? Is it possible that women are coming out triumphant here? That is a question that we already raised, admittedly playing devil’s advocate, in the first volume of the publication, published in 2018 by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Triumph of the women? The Female Face of the Far Right in Europe. We are now continuing this first volume with a series of detailed studies published at irregular intervals. This is partly in response to the enormous interest that this collection of research has aroused to date in the general public and in professional circles. As a foundation with roots in social democracy, from the outset one of our crucial concerns has been to monitor anti-democratic tendencies and developments, while also providing information about these, with a view to strengthening an open and democratic society thanks to these insights.
    [Show full text]