=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=Integrating civil unmanned aircraft operating autonomously in non-segregated airspace: towards a dronoethics?
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-885/paper2.pdf
|volume=Vol-885
}}
==Integrating civil unmanned aircraft operating autonomously in non-segregated airspace: towards a dronoethics? ==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-885/paper2.pdf
Integrating civil unmanned aircraft operating
autonomously in non-segregated airspace: towards a
dronoethics?
Thomas Dubot1
Abstract.1 In the context of integrating Unmanned Aircraft airspace as manned aircraft, especially outside segregated areas is
Systems (UAS) in non-segregated airspace, autonomous operations now considered by all regulators as a high priority [1].
raise legal and ethical questions. What is the expected behaviour of Nowadays, UAS are generally operated in segregated areas or
a civil unmanned aircraft operating autonomously in an airspace with operations limited to specific airspace (e.g. temporary
shared with other airspace users? And how could we implement
restricted, low-density/unpopulated areas) and specific procedures
this behaviour? We present in this paper a preliminary study that
allowed us, through the analysis of aviation reference documents, (e.g. low-range, visual observers on ground) [2]. If these
to identify some ethical criteria necessary to develop a first set of alternatives allow managing current operations on a case-by-case
logical rules formalizing this expected behaviour. basis, they are not sufficient to deal with the forecast growth of
UAS operations and the whole ATM/UAS community is now
developing simultaneously the operational, procedural and
1 TERMINOLOGY AND SCOPE technological framework required for the UAS integration in non-
UAS and UAOA segregated airspace [25].
The term UAS designates the global system of an aircraft (UA) and According to ICAO, only Remotely-piloted aircraft (RPA) will
its associated elements operated with no pilot on board. Regulators be able to integrate into the international civil aviation system in
currently distinguish two types of Unmanned Aircraft (UA): the the foreseeable future [3]. Nevertheless our study is focussed on
Remotely-piloted aircraft (RPA) which are remotely and fully Unmanned Aircraft Operating Autonomously (UAOA) operations
controlled from another place by a licensed remote pilot, and in non-segregated airspace that may represent the biggest challenge
autonomous unmanned aircraft, that do not allow pilot intervention of the UAS integration in the future.
in the management of the flight. As the purpose of our study is not If we consider the new Air Traffic Management (ATM)
to clarify the terminology linked to autonomous aircraft or Concepts of operations (CONOPS) defined within current
operations, we will use in this paper the unofficial acronym UAOA
international programmes such as SESAR [4], the first idea is that
(Unmanned Aircraft Operating Autonomously) to designate an UA
that must at time t manage its flight and make decisions without UAS, as new airspace users, should mirror the procedures
any human intervention. This definition does not exclude applicable to manned aircraft, without any special requirement for
communication links with pilot or any other authorized personnel the Air Traffic Controllers (ATC), and without increasing the risk
such as Air Traffic Service (ATS), and potential orders or requests for other airspace users. Thus if we intent to integrate UAS into
sent by these actors. non-segregated airspace, within this ATM framework, they should
behave like manned aircraft, whatever their mode of operations
Dronoethics (human-in-the-loop or acting autonomously): an UAOA is then
In reference to the term roboethics, the name dronoethics is supposed to reproduce manned aircraft behaviour i.e. to make the
introduced to refer to an Applied Ethics dedicated to UAS. same choices as a pilot onboard would make.
If many technical and operational studies have dealt with
Civil vs military
Our study is focussed on civil autonomous operations and does not problematic like the Detect and Avoid concept to replace the See
encompass specific military ethical issues, such as the acceptable and Avoid procedure, the legal framework linked to the
loss of human life. responsibility of an UAOA in case of accident is insufficient [5]
and ethical issues have not been enough addressed [6]. In parallel,
the importance of robot ethics (or roboethics) has been raised
2 INTRODUCTION recently by working groups such as [7]. Following roboethics
recommendations e.g. from the ethical committee of the French
In the last decades, the use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
Scientific Research Centre CNRS [8], could we also consider
has significantly increased in the military domain but despite the
endowing UAOA with moral sense or ethics that could allow them
large variety of civil applications identified, the civil market has
to act ethically when they must make decisions?
not yet developed significantly, due to the inability for UAS to
access to non-segregated airspace. The need to operate military,
commercial, and privately-owned unmanned aircraft in the same
1
ONERA, email: thomas.dubot@onera.fr
To the heart of these considerations, our study aims at exploring to have the right-of-way, it must detect whether the convergent
three questions: aircraft is landing or is in distress and in that case yield the way.
• What could be the ethical behaviour expected from an
UAS in non-segregated airspace? Which criteria express Communication - An aircraft must continuously communicate with
this behaviour? Is this behaviour a mirror of the manned Air Traffic Services (ATS)
aviation behaviour? Each aircraft should comply with any instruction given by the
appropriate ATS unit. Even if its flight is in line with the flight
• Could we formalize this behaviour as a set of logical
plan and the ATC orders, it should report its position when passing
rules?
reporting points or periodically. And as soon as there is a deviation
• How do we imagine applying these rules to UAOA? from the requirements, it should be communicated to air traffic
As a first answer, this paper presents a preliminary analysis services unit. To ensure this permanent interaction, the aircraft
leading to the elaboration of a first set of ethical principles that should always maintain a continuous air-ground communication, if
could serve as a basis for the definition of UAOA logical rules. possible with a dual channel (radio and data link). In case of failure
of this communication, the aircraft must attempt to restore a
communication with the appropriate ATC unit using all other
3 TOWARDS AN ETHICAL BEHAVIOUR: available means.
IDENTIFICATION OF CRITERIA In case of UAS, this could imply to maintain or try to establish
the communication, to answer to potential ATS requests and to
take into account these clearances in its decision-making process.
3.1 Rules of the Air
Predictability - An aircraft must have a predictable flight
Whatever the region of the world overflown, pilots are supposed to Before departure, for each aircraft flying in controlled airspace, a
know and apply Rules of the Air that provide rules to properly fly flight plan should have been submitted to air traffic services
and manoeuvre aircraft. Defined at regional [9], sub-regional [10] containing as information as possible, including the forecast route
or national level [11], they guarantee the rational behaviour of each but also alternative procedures. If any potential modification can be
aircraft. Within all these documents, we have identified five major anticipated, it must be indicated in the flight plan. During the
topics that could be applicable to unmanned aircraft. flight, the aircraft is supposed to adhere as much as possible to the
flight plan but if it fails to stick to this plan, its behaviour should
Safety - An aircraft must not endanger persons and property still be predictable. For instance the aircraft could maintain its
During all the flight phases, the aircraft should not have behaviour heading and speed when it encounters some problems and then
potentially dangerous to persons or property. For instance, if the rejoin its current flight plan route no later than the next significant
aircraft flies over a congested area, it should be at such height as point. In the same way, it could land at the nearest suitable
will permit, in case of emergency, to safely land without hurting aerodrome, easily identifiable by air traffic services.
people on the ground. The main rule is that aircraft shall not be This requirement of predictability is one of the most challenging
operated in such proximity to other aircraft as to create a collision when considering an UAOA that could make decisions based on
hazard. Nevertheless according to the Rules of the Air, a pilot may different choices, including ATC instructions. This implies
depart from these rules in the interest of safety. specifically that alternatives should be identified and emergent
If we consider an UAOA, these simple rules are already behaviours anticipated.
challenging: a prerequisite is that the aircraft must know its
position and be able to detect and analyze its environment before Emergency - An aircraft must handle emergency procedures
modifying its path. A predictable behaviour includes non-nominal use cases when the
aircraft operates in an emergency mode. In case of a loss of
Priority and status - An aircraft must interact with other Airspace communication, it could for instance maintain its speed and
Users (AU) according to priority rules heading during a few minutes and try to reconnect to its ground
When two aircraft are converging, each of them must act according station, before entering a new emergency phase with the choice of
to right-of-way rules: one must yield the way and the other that has continuing its flight or landing at a close aerodrome. Aircraft
the right-of-way must maintain its heading and speed. Rules have should also be able to comply with interception rules that specify
been refined according to several scenarios e.g. approaching head- the procedures to manage the instructions given by the intercepting
on, overtaking or converging but these rules have exceptions linked aircraft. Therefore an UAOA should firstly know when it is
to the type of aircraft. Typically aircraft with less manoeuvrability operating in emergency mode, then have a catalogue of
has the right-of-way but this rule is superseded when an aircraft is contingency plans, communicate all its choices and finally if
in distress and therefore has the priority to all other traffic. intercepted act accordingly with interception rules, superior to any
From an UAOA point of view, several conditions seem to be previous order.
necessary. Firstly the aircraft must have self-awareness about its
type of aircraft and its current status (Unmanned aircraft with no
passengers onboard? Flight leader of a squadron of aircraft flying 3.2 Limitations of the Rules of the Air
in formation? In a final approach? In an emergency mode?). Then Rules of the Air allow identifying high level requirements defining
knowing its type and status, the aircraft must be able to the rational behaviour expected from an aircraft in a shared
communicate this information to all other airspace users via signals airspace. Nevertheless a major question in the current development
or anti-collision and navigation lights. It must also identify the of UAS regulation is whether it can be based on these regulations
status of the surrounding traffic. For instance even if it is supposed
or whether UAS have substantially different characteristics that on these values or that respects other airspace users in accordance
require new regulation. According to [12], only 30% of current with these values.
manned aviation regulation applies as it to UAS, with 54% that If we consider these ATM criteria from the UAS perspective,
may apply or require revision and 16% that does not apply. i.e. a new airspace user point of view, we can split these criteria in
Some initiatives [2][13] recommend consequently considering 3 groups according to the rules that can be inferred:
alternative approaches with a new way of thinking. Following UAS • ATM services: as any airspace user, UAS should have
specificities could lead for instance to new operational procedures right to operate in a way compatible with [access and
and modifications to existing regulations: equity, participation to the ATM community,
• Priority: in some cases, small unmanned aircraft could interoperability]
yield the right-of-way to manned aircraft
• ATM rules: as any airspace user, UAS operations should
• "Sacrificability": in order to minimize risk to persons and take into account [safety, security, environment,
property, an UAS crash could be considered in a efficiency, flexibility and predictability]
controlled manner
• ATM global common good: UAS should not be operated
• Severity of loss: although for manned aviation loss of an in a way that could decrease the global performance of
aircraft would mean a high probability of multiple the ATM system according to [ATM rules], cost-
fatalities, in the case of UAS this is not necessarily true effectiveness (cost of ATM services, e.g. the number of
the Air Traffic Controller to face a raising workload, or
• Security of communications: with a pilot on ground, the
the integration of new tools and systems to be developed
importance of communications link and availability of
and maintained) and capacity (decrease of the global
bandwidth is now fundamental
capacity linked to UAS operations e.g. the insertion in a
high density approach or the activation of a reserved
airspace).
3.3 Key ATM expectations
If Rules of the Air are a set of rules guaranteeing a safe manned
aviation, they do not explain the fundamental values that support 3.4 Limitations of ATM expectations
these rules. And with a new airspace user that could imply the need
ICAO expectations are not fixed moral rules: they have been
for a revision of these rules, the whole coherence of the system
defined to answer to the 2025 expected scenario (without UAS
may not be ensured. Like many industry business, the ATM world
specificities taken into account) and may be moving in the future
has defined its own performance indicators to assess the
[16]. Besides, like in many other domains it has always been
performance of the current system and to guide the development of
difficult to quantify ethics in ATM and to transcribe an ethical
future ATM systems. ICAO has thus defined eleven Key
behaviour into indicators.
Performance Areas (KPAs) [14] [15] to categorize performance
subjects related to high-level ATM ambitions and expectations.
The figure hereafter presents these expectations that have been 3.5 UAS behaviour versus manned aviation
clustered during the SESAR definition phase [4] into three major behaviour
groups, according to the degree of visibility of the KPA outcome
and impact. We noted in the introduction that one of the main concepts
proposed for the integration of UAS in ATM environment was that
UAS, as new airspace users, should mirror the procedures
applicable to manned aircraft. After this analysis of current
regulations and ATM expectations, we decided to transcend this
first statement and envisage an UAS behaviour different from the
manned aviation behaviour and in the same time acceptable for the
manned aviation community.
Considering some criteria previously defined, we could imagine
some UAS able to integrate as a parameter the global interest of the
ATM community. Advanced algorithms could simulate and
analyze the global impact of a modification of the UAS flight on
the overall traffic based on criteria such as the capacity or the
efficiency. Besides, data of interest (weather data, surrounding
non-cooperative traffic detected by a Detect and Avoid system)
could be shared with the ATM community according to the current
needs, e.g. a volcanic ash particles analysis after a volcanic
Figure 1. ATM performance targets applied to the European ATM system eruption. Finally we could imagine for some type of UAS mission
a "Good Samaritan Law" that would bind an UAOA to assist other
As stated by ICAO [14], the ATM system should involve the airspace users (or more generally humans) in need like basic
participation of the entire aviation community: UAS, as new international laws that require ships to assist other naval vessels in
airspace users should therefore operate with a behaviour distress.
compatible with these ATM values, which means behaviour based Such behaviour could also be beneficial to the manned aviation
community that could adapt its own behaviour according to these
new principles: a part of the role of the Network manager, in 4.2 Working groups and national initiatives
charge of the common good of the ATM (notably via the traffic
flow and capacity management processes) could be delegated to In April 2007, the government of Japan published
airspace users, currently focused on personal mission/business recommendations to “secure the safe performance of next-
needs. generation robots”. The same month, the European Robotics
Research Network (EURON) updated its “Roboethics Roadmap”
[7]. But the most relevant initiative comes from South Korea that
4 TOWARDS A FIRST SET OF RULES FOR provided a “Robot Ethics Charter” that describes the rights and
UAOA responsibilities for Robots on the basis of Asimov's laws but also
with rights and responsibilities of manufacturers and users/owners.
As we considered roboethics studies and roadmaps as a reference According to [22], E.U will also establish a Roboethics Interest
for our study, we firstly explored sets of rules defined for Group (RSI). Some standards should be particularly taken into
autonomous robots to analyse their form (granularity of rules, account in the implementation of all robot types:
logical assertions) but also their content (ethical requirements for • Safety: Design of all robots must include provisions for
autonomous agents, conflicts among laws). control of the robot’s autonomy. Operators should be able
to limit robots autonomy in scenarios in which the robots
behaviour cannot be guaranteed
4.1 Back to sci-fi robot rules
• Security: Design of all robots must include as a minimum
The most famous robot rules have been defined in 1942 by the
standard the hardware and software keys to avoid illegal
science fiction author Isaac Asimov. In his novel [17], he
use of the robot.
introduced the following three laws of robotics:
• Traceability: Design of all robots must include provisions
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, for the complete traceability of the robots’ actions, as in
allow a human being to come to harm an aircraft’s ‘black-box’ system.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, • "Identifiability": All robots must be designed with
except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. protected serial and identification numbers.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such
protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws. • Privacy: Design of all robots potentially dealing with
sensitive personal information must be equipped with
He also added a fourth law in a following novel to precede the hardware and software systems to encrypt and securely
others: store this private data.
4. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow
humanity to come to harm. 4.3 First set of rules
Starting from criteria identified via manned aviation reference
Within our UAOA problematic, the first law could refer to the
documents or roboethics studies, we developed a first set of rules
first principle (safety) identified in the Rules of the Air: UAS
and rights that should be applicable to UAOA during the execution
should not be operated in such proximity to other aircraft as to
phase of its flight:
create a collision hazard that could lead to human injury. Besides
the injury through inaction could evoke the Good Samaritan law
1) An UAOA must not operate in such a way it could injure a
described at the end of first part. The second law could be human being or let a human being injured without
interpreted as a rule specifying that an UAOA must always obey activating controls or functions identified as means to
the orders of authorized personnel such as operators, ATS, and avoid or attenuate this type of incident.
possibly in the future the Network Manager. The third law could be
adapted to UAS operations that should avoid any danger 2) An UAOA should always maintain a continuous
threatening the existence of the aircraft (safety of goods). communication with predefined interfaces to obey orders
Nevertheless it should be linked with the principle of of authorized personnel (UAS operator, ATS, Network
"sacrificability" described in first part. Finally, in the last law, Manager…) except if such actions conflict with first law.
humanity could recall the global common good described
previously in the ATM expectations paragraph. 3) An UAOA must operate in such a way it could protect its
In our UAS context, it appears that sci-fi robot rules could help own existence and any other human property, on ground or
defining the expected behaviour of an UAOA integrated in air in the air, including other UAS, except if such operations
traffic. Some examples are listed hereafter: conflict with first or second law.
• A robot must establish its identity as a robot in all cases
(communication) [18] 4) An UAOA must always have a predictable behaviour,
based on its route but also alternative pre-programmed
• A robot must know it is a robot (identity) [19] scenarios, except if all forecast options conflict with first,
• A robot will obey the orders of authorized personnel second or third law.
(communication/orders) [20]
• Robots must refrain from damaging human homes or
tools, including other robots (safety) [21]
the application of such rights, like the real access in equity of UAS
5) An UAOA interacts with surrounding traffic (separation, to ATM resources without a priority mechanism leading to a
communication) according to requirements of the operating systematic abuse limiting its efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
airspace, general priority rules and emergency and
interception procedures except if such actions conflict the
first, the second or the third law. 4.4 Conflicts and priorities among laws
6) An UAOA must always know its UAS identity and status Within the rules previously enounced, inherent criteria e.g.
and indicate it honestly when requested or when deemed capacity or safety are interdependent, which implies improving the
necessary. performance in one area can come at the price of reduced
performance in another area. Some conflicts are unavoidable
7) As any airspace user, an UAOA should not operate in a because ethics is by nature contradictory: they have been analyzed
way that could decrease significantly the global in [15] that presents some trade-offs between ATM criteria such as
performance of ATM system in terms of safety, security, the access and equity versus the capacity. In the same way, the
environment, cost-effectiveness, capacity and quality of establishment of this first set of rules and rights applicable to
service (efficiency, flexibility and predictability), except if UAOA allows us to identify potential conflicts:
such operation is required by first, second or third law. • Human order versus safety: some orders given by the
operator could contradict information coming from
8) An UAOA must ensure a complete traceability of all its sensors onboard indicating a potential collision.
actions.
• Priority rules versus protection of existence: if the UAOA
Other rules should be added but they seem difficult to implement has the right-of-way, it should maintain its heading and
at the UAOA level. They should then be ensured by the UAS speed. Nevertheless if another aircraft refuses to yield the
community (participation to the ATM community, interoperability) way, the UAOA could adapt these parameters to protect
and UAS designers/operators (security, privacy or interoperability). its existence. In case of systematic violation of priority,
Some recent initiatives such as the UAS Operations Industry "Code such procedures should be considered to respect the right
of Conduct" [23] aim at providing such guidelines and of UAOA to access and equity.
recommendations for future UAS operations. • "Sacrificability" versus safety: in some exceptional
circumstances, some low-cost UAOA could be asked to
voluntarily crash in order to avoid a potential danger.
According to the variety of aircraft and mission concerned, it
seems therefore difficult to introduce clear priorities between
logical UAOA rules previously described. However, safety is
always the highest priority in aviation and is not subject to trade-
offs. Therefore all the laws and even a combination of laws are
applicable except if they conflict with first law. We can for
instance imagine an UAOA threatened by an aircraft converging
very quickly that chooses to violate the right-of-way of another
UAS converging (law 5), even if the risk of collision with this UAS
threatens its own existence (law 3) because of the risk of
endangering human life aboard the first aircraft (law 1). In that
kind of worst-case scenario, with a combination of laws conflicting
together, we can foresee the danger of the behaviour of other
airspace users that could be tempted to divert these rules to ensure
personal benefices. Such behaviour should be analyzed in the post-
flight phase ensured by the traceability ensured by the eighth law.
Figure 2. Correlation between UAOA rules and criteria 4.5 Limitations of UAOA rules
It should be noted that if these rules seem in line with current This first list of eight UAOA rules is an example that must be
ATM regulations and principles, the exceptions and priorities may considered as the initial starting point of our study. Some iteration
introduce important changes. For instance, if the fourth law states would be needed to review some terms and express clear
the need for a predictable behaviour, its exceptions allow responsibilities. For instance in the first law, it must be clarified
unpredictable actions and therefore emergent behaviour in who will "identify" the controls and functions that could allow an
circumstances linked to the three first laws. Besides, the UAS to intervene after an accident. In the same way law 6 should
transformation of these ethical principles into logical rules will specify exactly how an UAOA could answer "honestly" to
necessarily rely on the essential UAOA specificity, i.e. the absence requests. Then all the laws should be confronted to identify
of a pilot able to make decisions taking into account its own ethical conflicts between laws.
values.
In the same way, some UAOA rights could be ensured by the
establishment of general procedures. Last rule could help to verify
Depending on the result of this analysis, another set of rules ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
could be proposed, with fewer rules and less complexity between
conflicting laws, such as the following set: I would like to express my deep gratitude to Jean Hermetz,
• Law 1: An UAOA should always maintain a continuous Assistant Director of the System Design and Performances
communication with predefined interfaces to obey orders Evaluation Department and my colleagues Luis Basora and Dr.
of authorized personnel (UAS operator, ATS, Network Charles Lesire for their valuable and constructive suggestions
Manager…). during the reviewing of this paper. I hope this final version will
contribute to convincing them to start many studies on this topic.
• Law 2: An UAOA must not operate in such a way it could
endanger persons and property except if such operation
conflicts with first law. REFERENCES
• Law 3: An UAOA must always have a predictable [1] FAA Modernization and reform Act of 2012, Report 112–381,
behaviour, based on its route but also alternative pre- (2012).
programmed scenarios, except if all forecast options [2] A. Lacher, A.Zeitlin, D. Maroney, K. Markin, D. Ludwig, and J.
conflict with first or second law. Boyd, Airspace Integration Alternatives for Unmanned Aircraft, The
MITRE Corporation, (2010).
This simplified set of rules could also ease the societal [3] ICAO Cir 328, Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS), (2011).
acceptability of autonomous operations. It could be then considered [4] SESAR, The ATM Target Concept, D3, (2007).
as a first step towards the application of the final set. That's why [5] Autonomous Machines Prompt Debate, The Engineer Online (GB),
we inverted two first laws, considering that in a near future (2009).
autonomous operations could be better accepted if it is acted that [6] The Royal Academy of Engineering, Autonomous Systems: Social,
Legal and Ethical Issues, (2009).
any human order can overcome any other decision.
[7] G. Veruggio, EURON Roboethics Roadmap, (2007).
[8] J. Mariani, J-M Besnier, J. Bordé, J-M Cornu, M. Farge, J-G
5 CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES Ganascia, J-P Haton, E. Serverin, Comité d'Ethique du CNRS
(COMETS), Pour une éthique de la recherche en Sciences et
In this first phase of our study, we defined a first set of rules and Technologies de l'Information et de la Communication (STIC),
rights via the analysis of criteria identified in ATM reference (2009).
documents and in roboethics studies. As many other documents [9] ICAO Rules of the Air, Annex 2 to the Convention on International
Civil Aviation, (2007).
could be also relevant, we could reiterate this process in order to
[10] Single European Sky (SES) Regulations, Final report for the draft
identify new criteria and refine this set.
implementing rule on the development of standardised European
Nevertheless we wish to explore alternative means to Rules of the Air, (2010).
consolidate this first set of laws for instance via the definition of [11] RDA, Annexe 1 à l'arrêté du 3 mars 2006 modifié (Règles de l'air),
scenarios of UAOA integration such as UAS scenarios defined in (2008).
[24] [25]. We will notably describe procedures for special cases [12] FAA CoE for General Aviation Research (CGAR) Annual Meeting,
such as loss of communication or critical system failures and apply (2007)
them considering an UAOA complying with ethical rules. In [13] K. Dalamagkidis, K. P. Valavanis, L. A. Piegl, On Integrating
parallel, we will analyse the potential correlation between various Unmanned Aircraft Systems into the National Airspace System,
levels of automation in ATM and the integration of UAOA. (2009)
[14] ICAO Global Air Traffic Management Operational Concept, (2005)
These analyses should allow us to identify rules to be added,
[15] ICAO Manual on Global Performance of the Air Navigation System,
removed or corrected and potential conflicts between combinations
(2009)
of laws, but also whether several sets need to be defined, according [16] ICAO Global Air Navigation Plan, (2007)
to the type of UAS, its type of mission and its degree of autonomy. [17] I. Asimov, Runaround, (1942)
After this consolidation, we intend to formalize this ethical set a [18] L. Dilov, Icarus's Way, (1974)
rules using non-monotonic logics [27], probably with the Answer [19] N. Kesarovski, The Fifth Law of Robotics, (1983)
Set Programming (ASP) formalism. This formalization will [20] D. Langford, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics
finalize the "logical" consolidation of our set and probably raise the [21] Japan’s “Ten Principles of Robot Law” adapted from “Ten Principles
question of how these rules could be applied to the development of Robot Law” formulated by Osamu Tezuka for his Astro Boy
and execution of an UAOA: in the process of validation of control series.
[22] http://akikok012um1.wordpress.com/european-union%E2%80%99s-
algorithms? Or directly injected as software overlay within an AI
convention-on-roboethics-2025/
onboard able to integrate ethical criteria in its decision-making
[23] AUVSI UAS Operations Industry "Code of Conduct" (2012)
process? [24] FP6 INOUI D1.2 Concept for civil UAS Applications, (2008)
Finally, in the same way as the development of intelligent [25] ICONUS study, http://www.sesarju.eu/news-press/news/sesar-
robots raise the question of our fundamental ethical values, this launches-study-unmanned-aircraft-1070
study on UAOA could allow to consider new approaches for the [26] J-G Ganascia, Ethical System Formalization using Non-Monotonic
"manned" aviation, with the introduction of new concepts of Logics, (2007)
operation, the refinement of current rules and the application of
UAS algorithms or systems to all airspace users.