Air Navigation (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

2.04 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

In Singapore, we regulate civil aviation safety and security through the Air Navigation Act or ANA. We need to update the Act from time to time to ensure that our regulatory framework keeps pace with developments in the aviation sector.

This Air Navigation (Amendment) Bill amends the ANA to enable Singapore to meet new international civil aviation obligations and to enhance penalties for a greater deterrent effect for offences involving unmanned aircraft. The Bill has three components:

The first protects recordings and transcripts of flight recorders in accordance with Annex 6 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation or Chicago Convention. The second increases the penalties for offences pertaining to unauthorised unmanned aircraft operations. And the third enables the National Civil Aviation Security Authority (NCASA) to delegate its powers to any public officer who is not an aviation security inspector.

Let me explain each of these components in turn.

The first set of amendments set out in clause 2 of the Bill will empower the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) to make regulations to protect flight recorder information or any similar information from use and disclosure in line with changes to Annex 6 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, also known as "the Chicago Convention".

Flight recorders contain critical information, including the pressure-altitude and airspeed of the aircraft during flight, information from other electronic systems on the aircraft, as well as the conversations between the pilots. Before the latest amendments to Annex 6 of the Chicago Convention, there was no provision on the use and protection of flight recorder information outside the scope of an accident and incident investigation. These latest amendments were put in place to address the use of flight recorder information in other circumstances.

Specifically, recordings may now be used for safety management, such as carrying out safety trend analysis and training, or in carrying out inspections and maintenance of the flight recorder, and when appropriate, for criminal proceedings. These are the allowable uses in Annex 6 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation. For example, flight recorder information with appropriate safeguards can be used for analyses of trends as part of an airline's safety management system. The Bill will allow CAAS to legislate the circumstances for use of flight recorder information and the appropriate safeguards.

Any person with access to the information will be prohibited from disclosing or using the information except in prescribed circumstances. This will enhance confidence that the information, originally intended for accident investigation purposes and which is also useful for aviation safety, would not be misused. There will be no limitation on disclosure or use for purposes of accident investigation under the Transport Safety Investigation Bureau Act or for the purpose of reporting a known or suspected act of unlawful interference required by that Act.

The second and largest set of amendments concern the penalties for offences involving the use of unmanned aircraft. The CAAS and MHA had implemented a regulatory framework to regulate the operation of unmanned aircraft in Singapore in June 2015 following the passing of the Unmanned Aircraft (Public Safety and Security) Bill. This included a permit regime that adopted a risk-based approach to ensure that operators are responsible and operate unmanned aircraft safely. Since then, the use of unmanned aircraft has risen rapidly. In 2018, CAAS approved 522 Operator Permits and 2,322 Activity Permits. This is a year-on-year increase of 35% and 65% from 2017. For the first nine months of this year, CAAS has approved 480 Operator Permits and 2,195 Activity Permits.

CAAS is tightening this unmanned aircraft regulatory framework by introducing a mandatory registration regime for all unmanned aircraft above 250 g. The purpose of registration is accountability and traceability. We will design the registration process to achieve this objective while keeping it as simple and as convenient as possible for users. CAAS will be providing more information on the details of this regime.

Most operators fly their unmanned aircraft responsibly and in compliance with regulations. Many of these users operate unmanned aircraft for beneficial and innovative purposes, improving work processes and productivity in the areas of inspections, surveillance and aerial photography, amongst others. We are also facilitating trials for more complex uses, such as medical and ship to shore deliveries. Our schools and Institutions of Higher Learning also use unmanned aircraft to teach robotics, programming and other areas in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM).

Unfortunately, there are reckless and irresponsible unmanned aircraft operators who operate in flagrant disregard of the law. When operated irresponsibly, an unmanned aircraft could endanger others and cause widespread disruption of lawful activities, resulting in significant economic loss. One such example would be when an unmanned aircraft disrupts airport operations. This has happened to major international airports – Gatwick Airport had about 1,000 flights disrupted in December 2018 while Frankfurt Airport had about 200 flights disrupted in May 2019. During the unmanned aircraft intrusions at Changi Airport in June 2019, about 60 flights were affected.

Today, the penalty for most of the offences involving unmanned aircraft is a maximum fine of $20,000. This has obviously not served as a deterrent. It is also manifestly inadequate when one takes into account the damage and disruption unmanned aircraft can cause when operated in an irresponsible way. In particular, we need to make sure that we have higher penalties for repeat offenders who fail to learn from their mistakes and offenders who knowingly or recklessly operate an unmanned aircraft in a manner that endangers lives or property.

The Bill therefore contains five clauses aimed at raising the penalties for offences involving unmanned aircraft. Clauses 3 to 7 of the Bill make the following amendments:

For the offence of conducting any aerial activity without the required aviation safety instruments, such as operating an unmanned aircraft without the required operator and/or activity permits, the Bill introduces a discretionary jail term – up to two years for first offenders, and up to five years for repeat offenders. The maximum fines will remain at $50,000 for first offenders, and $100,000 for repeat offenders.

For the offence of operating an unmanned aircraft to overfly or take photographs of a protected area, or discharging a substance, whether gaseous, liquid or solid, without authorisation when flying an unmanned aircraft, the Bill raises the maximum fine for first offenders from $20,000 to $50,000 and raises or introduces a jail term of up to two years. The Bill also introduces an enhanced penalty for repeat offenders – a maximum fine of $100,000 or imprisonment of up to five years, or both.

For the offence of not complying with a direction given by an enforcement officer to end the flight of an unmanned aircraft, to land it safely or to fly the unmanned aircraft in the manner specified by the authorised person, the Bill increases the maximum jail term from 12 months to two years. The maximum fines will remain at $20,000.

For the offence of doing any act or causing or permitting an act involving an aircraft, knowing that or reckless as to whether life or property could be endangered, a higher custodial punishment is introduced where this sort of activity involves an unmanned aircraft. Where the unmanned aircraft is operated by a person who knows that, or is reckless as to whether the unmanned aircraft operation could endanger the life or property of another person, the person may face a fine not exceeding $100,000 or a maximum imprisonment term of 10 years or both.

The Bill contains examples of what sort of dangerous activity we are looking at.

The challenges of regulating the use of unmanned aircraft in an urban environment are not unique to Singapore and countries around the world are grappling with the same issues. The amendments in the Bill are to send a strong deterrent signal. Our Courts will be able to mete out appropriate punishments to errant unmanned aircraft users who endanger aviation and public safety. We will continue to proactively fine-tune the regulatory framework and invest in counter unmanned aircraft capabilities so as to keep our skies safe.

Finally, clause 8 of the Bill is an amendment of a housekeeping nature. It is to enable the National Civil Aviation Security Authority to delegate its powers to a public officer who is not an aviation security inspector. This will give greater flexibility to the NCASA to delegate his powers to bigger group of individuals where the enforcement powers of an aviation security inspector are not required.

Mr Speaker, the amendments in the Bill will contribute to enhancing safety and security of air transport and aviation in Singapore. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

2.15 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Air Navigation (Amendment) seeks to amend section 3A to prohibit the disclosure of flight recorder information to any Court for criminal and civil proceedings except, I quote the Bill, "in prescribed circumstances". The Explanatory Note of the Bill states that this amendment is to put Singapore in line with Annex 6 of the Chicago Convention.

Notwithstanding the prescribed circumstances which the Senior Minister of State has taken us through, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the prohibition against disclosure of flight recorder information, despite the exceptions, will, in any way, allow industry players, interested individuals or parties, or even authorities to rely on this prohibition unfairly and against public interest or safety to prevent disclosure of information whether for fear of prejudicing the respective party's interest or even fear of bad publicity affecting the relevant party. It brings to mind recent media reports of suppression of disclosure by Boeing staff of concerns relating to the Boeing 737 Max aircraft prior to the two crashes which led eventually to the grounding of the aircraft.

Next, the Air Navigation (Amendment) Bill also seeks to introduce, among other things, increased punishments for illegal use of unmanned aircraft or drones. The increase in punishments will hopefully deter recreational users from using their unmanned aircraft in prohibited areas and will make the users more aware of keeping their use to allowed areas. But changing the law per se and charging the odd person and hoping to make him an example may not be sufficient to ensure that all users know the laws. It is important that the Government must be effective in disseminating to the public especially the drone users the legal restrictions imposed by the law and the enhancements in punishments.

Sometime last year, I saw a foreigner using a drone at a beach in Sentosa and was later stopped by a security person. I was not even sure he was arrested or detained. The person did not seem to know that he was not supposed to use the drone in the vicinity. In some ways, this is like the problem we see with some people who still do not know that PMDs are not supposed to be used in certain areas.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State how does the Government intend to educate all unmanned aircraft or drone users as well as the public on the restrictions for drone use and punishments prescribed by law for illegal uses.

Like the man I saw in Sentosa, I have also seen other tourists or foreigners use such drones in the public. I would like to ask the Minister how does the Government ensure that visitors and foreigners are made aware of the restrictions for drone usage and ensuing punishments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen shared with this House last month how SAF is equipped to handle military grade drone attacks on Singapore. He gave assurances to the effect, as I understand, that SAF has the ability to defend against the kind of attacks which were levelled against the Saudi oil installations recently.

In an earlier press interview in June this year, Minister Ng also shared that CAAS had asked SAF for professional advice and that SAF has told CAAS, and I quote Mr Ng, "What is out there in the market that they can procure if they want it quickly. What kind of defences they need, and it's up to CAAS to know what they need." So, it seems that SAF has shared its know-how with MOT and CAAS and gave recommendations on the possible technology and equipment which CAAS can consider deploying.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State since then, what has CAAS done to beef up its anti-drone defences. Can he share with this House some details of the work done?

I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State how confident MOT or CAAS is in avoiding flight disruptions in future should there be similar drone intrusions or attacks, at least the non-weaponised types, if we are to assume that SAF is responsible for all weaponised drone attacks. Any such Ministerial assurances which can be given in this respect is welcome and is important for Singapore because, for a major air hub, like Changi, even if we were to exclude weaponised attacks, Changi airport cannot afford to have its flights randomly affected by drone intrusions.

I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State since the drone incidents in June causing disruptions, has there been any other incidents of drone intrusions which led to flight disruptions or nearly lead to any flight disruptions?

Finally, I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Government has identified the operators responsible for the flight disruptions in June 2019 or the person or persons behind the operator. If so, can he share the findings with this House? If not, is the Government confident of finding out who the culprits are?

Mr Speaker, Sir, less than two weeks ago, a passenger drone, also referred to as a flying taxi, went for a lightning spin in Marina Bay generating some publicity. Now, is this a one-off publicity spin, in which I wonder what is the point of it as we are nowhere near ready for this? Or is the Government even seriously contemplating use of flying taxi in the near future? The thought brings some quivers, not because I do not welcome modern technology. But after what we have seen with the introduction of other drones and PMDs and the inability of the law to prevent transgressions or accidents, how prepared are we, legally speaking, to handle passenger drones?

We must always try and embrace technological advancement or new applications, but the law must also keep abreast or even stay ahead to regulate technological application and help set the right culture from the onset, instead of playing catch up. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my questions and concerns, I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State.

2.21 pm

Dr Lam Pin Min: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Dennis Tan for his comments and support for the Bill. Mr Dennis Tan has raised a number of questions which I will address in turn.

On the prohibition of disclosure of flight recorder information, Mr Dennis Tan asked if there is any possibility of abuse by individuals, companies and even authorities, raising the example of Boeing in the United States. The legislative amendments are aimed at strengthening protection, by enabling CAAS to make regulations to prescribe the circumstances and appropriate safeguards under which flight recorder information can be used or disclosed, and this is in line with the latest amendments to Annex 6 of the Chicago Convention.

As I have alluded to in my opening speech, there will be no restriction on the disclosure or use of flight recorder information for accident investigation by the Transport Safety Investigation Bureau or for reporting a known or suspected act of unlawful interference. This is stated in the new paragraph (oa) under subsection 1 to section 3A of the Air Navigation Act.

Practices are in place today to guard against misuse or inappropriate disclosure of flight recorder information. For example, firstly, access controls to the recorders and the equipment are needed to download or playback the recordings; secondly, an individual who might be recorded in the recordings must be de-identified; thirdly, the information when provided has to be in aggregated format; and fourthly, the information has to be transferred by secure means. The Bill will allow CAAS to make regulations on appropriate safeguards for the use and disclosure of recorder information, in line with the provisions in Annex 6.

On the unauthorised use of unmanned aircraft, Mr Dennis Tan asked about the efforts being made in public education of the restrictions, offences and punishments. This is a valid concern. CAAS works with other Government agencies including MHA and MINDEF to educate the public on how to operate unmanned aircraft responsibly and in compliance with regulations. Apart from issuing advisory flyers that highlight the set of "do's and don’ts" on the safe and responsible operation of unmanned aircraft, CAAS' other outreach efforts include safety series and seminars to engage and educate different user groups on the unmanned aircraft regulatory framework. As we make enhancements to the unmanned aircraft regulatory framework, CAAS will continue to engage the public to ensure that they are clear about their responsibilities when operating unmanned aircraft and the penalties that they would be subject to for offences involving unmanned aircraft.

We will also be working with interest groups to raise awareness of this regulation as well as the stiffer punishments that come with it. And as for tourists, they will also need to register their drones as well if they want to use unmanned aircraft in Singapore and we will continue to work with CAAS and CAG on how to raise awareness on these regulations for tourists.

Mr Dennis Tan also asked for an update on the unmanned aircraft intrusions at Changi Airport in June 2019. Investigations are currently still ongoing and there are no further developments for me to report at this point in time. Since June 2019, there have been no intrusions that affect the operations of Changi Airport. We will continue to remain alert for any other unmanned aircraft intrusions.

With regard to the Member's question on the counter unmanned aircraft measures that we have, CAAS and CAG are investing in counter unmanned aircraft measures to safeguard the airport. Unmanned aircraft intrusions can be very difficult to detect and counter because unmanned aircrafts can be very small and do not show up well on sensors. In addition, some perpetrators can site their elusive operations anywhere within quite a large area around an airport because unmanned aircraft are controlled remotely. CAAS and CAG therefore conduct regular patrols to look out for errant unmanned aircraft operators. They are also investing in additional capabilities to better detect and disrupt unmanned aircraft activities and these include the customisation and calibration of commercial systems for Changi Airport with the help of our Defence Science Agencies as well as training of personnel to man the systems and respond effectively to minimise disruptions to runway operations. The enhanced penalty framework that I have mentioned just now will, hopefully, serve as a strong deterrent against irresponsible and illegal unmanned aircraft operations.

Mr Speaker, in summary, this Bill supports our vision for a more effective regulatory system by enhancing CAAS' enforcement and regulatory powers. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Lam Pin Min].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.