Opening Speech by Senior Minister of State for Transport Dr Lam Pin Min on Second Reading of Air Navigation (Amendment) Bill 2019

Opening

1.     Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a second time.”

Introduction

2.     In Singapore, we regulate civil aviation safety and security through the Air Navigation Act (“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.

3. This Air Navigation (Amendment) Bill (“the 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 (UA). The Bill has three components:

a.     The first protects recordings and transcripts of flight recorders in accordance with Annex 6 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (“Chicago Convention”);

b.     The second increases the penalties for offences pertaining to unauthorised UA operations; and

c.     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.

4. Let me explain each of these components in turn.

Protection of Recordings and Transcripts of Flight Recorders in accordance with Annex 6 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (“Chicago Convention”)

5.     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”).

6.     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.

7.     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.

8.     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 the 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.

Increases in Penalties for Offences Involving UA

9.     The second and largest set of amendments concern the penalties for offences involving the use of UAs. The CAAS and MHA had implemented a regulatory framework to regulate the operation of UA in Singapore in Jun 2015 following the passing of the UA (Public Safety and Security) Bill. This included a permit regime that adopted a risk-based approach to ensure that operators are responsible and operate UAs safely. Since then, the use of UA has risen rapidly. In 2018, CAAS approved 522 Operator Permits and 2322 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 2195 Activity Permits.

10.    CAAS is tightening this UA regulatory framework by introducing a mandatory registration regime for all UAs above 250g. 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.

11.    Most operators fly their UAs responsibly in compliance with regulations. Many of these users operate UAs 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 UAs to teach robotics, programming, and other areas in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM).

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

13.    Today, the penalty for most of the offences involving UAs 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 UAs 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 a UA in a manner that endangers lives or property.

14.    The Bill therefore contains 5 clauses aimed at raising the penalties for offences involving UAs. Clauses 3 to 7 of the Bill make the following amendments:

a.     For the offence of conducting any aerial activity without the required aviation safety instruments, such as operating a UA without the required operator and/or activity permits, the Bill introduces a discretionary jail term - up to 2 years for first offenders, and up to 5 years for repeat offenders. The maximum fines will remain at $50,000 for first offenders, and $100,000 for repeat offenders.

b.     For the offence of operating a UA to overfly or take photographs of a protected area, or discharging a substance (whether gaseous, liquid or solid) without authorisation when flying a UA, 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 2 years. The Bill also introduces an enhanced penalty for repeat offenders – a maximum fine of $100,000, or imprisonment of up to 5 years, or both.

c.     For the offence of not complying with a direction given by an enforcement officer to end the flight of a UA, to land it safely or to fly the UA in the manner specified by the authorised person, the Bill increases the maximum jail term from 12 months to 2 years. The maximum fines will remain at $20,000.

d.     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 a UA. Where the UA is operated by a person who knows that, or is reckless as to whether the UA 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. That the UA operator has a permit from CAAS will not be an excuse.

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

15.    The challenges of regulating the use of UA 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 UA users who endanger aviation and public safety. We will continue to proactively fine-tune the regulatory framework and invest in counter UA capabilities so as to keep our skies safe.

Miscellaneous Amendment

16.    Finally, clause 8 of the Bill is an amendment of a housekeeping nature. It is to enable the National Civil Aviation Security Authority (“NCASA”) 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.

Conclusion

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

18.    Mr Speaker, I beg to move.