Published in the Daily Bugle May 31, 2024
I don’t think many CCL or USML entries bring people joy. Most entries are compromises that leave all participants equally displeased[1]. At the other end of the spectrum, it’s my belief that CCL 9A012 is right there as the most universally despised entry, in a dead heat with 7E004.b.
9A012 is the control on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (“UAVs”). The control language is complex, difficult to evaluate, easy to evade, and the world’s leading producer of small UAVs is a country the controls are intended to thwart. That the thresholds are seemingly arbitrary is merely icing on the gelatinous mass of poo.
Frankly, we couldn’t have made it worse without requiring you to solve Latin word problems with differential equations[2]. And it all started with toys. Well, model aircraft, really.
9A012 first appeared in the Wassenaar in 2001, a relatively simple control of unmanned aerial vehicles with either autonomous flight or operation outside the direct view of the operator. To avoid misunderstanding and overcontrol[3], it included the note to the effect of “9A012 does not control model aircraft.” That was accompanied by the stated understanding that “model aircraft as intended for recreational and competition purposes.” There was a 3-year validity note in case no such items would be exported. (Ha!)
2005 added paragraph .b for associated systems and equipment, updated in 2007 to include high altitude internal combustion engines.
It’s relatively easy to identify UAVs that fall just below MTCR thresholds (500 kg, 300 km), but the problem was at the low end of the performance scale. With the advent of high‑performance computers, solid-state accelerometers, and high-definition cameras posing as cell phones, along with better battery technology, the price of entry of autonomous UAVs dropped like a stone.
Many countries had trouble with the “not a model aircraft” release as being just too vague, and considerable effort went into trying to put some rigor around that. A favorite trick of WA entry writing is to stick someone else with owning the threshold – it’s why you see so many ISO standards, and others like 9.A.1, which pins the burden on Certification Authorities. Alas, we couldn’t find a usable standard for model aircraft that wasn’t either also too vague or too narrow.
There was some thought that the control itself was out of date, But in September 2013, the German Pirate Party crashed a small UAV in front of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and everyone was reminded just how vulnerable we are to these things. The control was here to stay, but needed some way to replace the Model Aircraft release.
With the basic cell phone, the ability to have stable flight and autonomy was now a given, so the minimum cost of entry to 9A012 became the ability to fly out of the direct sight of the operator. The Regulators had been burned by too many questions on interpreting “model aircraft,” so they wouldn’t be burned on vision. That’s why there is a pedantic definition of “operator,” and even drag in corrective lenses[4].
The other leg was endurance, taking a cue from the MTCR. While endurance has a helpful ISO standard, it’s a soft control because it can be affected by more fuel (or battery), although you start trading fuel for payload. Flight time less than 30 minutes? Let it go; that’s right at the level of the Chinese, er, Non-Wassenaar Participating State commercial/recreational UAVs. To further avoid controlling “recreational” aircraft, a wind gust requirement was added. The thought was that a weapon system loses utility if you can’t use it on a blustery day. Transitioning from ground to flight (i.e., “take-off”) is a dangerous time for any aircraft, and to do so in windy conditions requires more power and a lot more control authority than when it’s calm. Why 25 knots? That’s blustery, and multiples of five are popular[5]. To settle any arguments, 25-knot gusts are absolute wind speed, not on top of any steady state wind.
If it can fly for more than an hour, it probably doesn’t have a battery.[6] Why one hour? Because it’s a nice round number; two hours would release too many items, and a half-hour was already taken.
The 2014 update not only employed an endurance standard, it deleted remote control equipment (as that is often commercial off-the-shelf) and guidance systems not controlled in Cat 7, as those were also generally commercially available for other uses. The “model aircraft” release note was deleted a year later (“oops!”) The only other change since was in 2019, to add a Related Controls note to look in 9A004.h for “sub-orbital” UAVs, as that was a newly defined term and they wanted to use it wherever they could. All this to avoid having to reference model aircraft!
Most folks agree that the horses have left the barn long ago on small UAVs. They are ubiquitous and cheap, the it’s easy to fudge the specs to come in under the threshold[7]. But with Merkle-Gate, and Ukrainian’s use of small commercial drones all over the news, we’re not getting rid of 9A012 anytime soon.
Got J&C questions? – please reach out to me at ArtOfJC@arinovis.com
[1] Not the best compromise, but often the most equitable.
[2] That gives me a great idea for a new Wassenaar proposal…..
[3] I’ll wait for you to stop laughing.
[4] Wouldn’t want a UAV controlled because of operator myopia.
[5] Or six, if you’re Count Tyrone Rugen. Look it up.
[6] Although that technology is rapidly changing, but you have to start with something.
[7] Most DJI drones conveniently are spec’d to come in at *just under* the max airspeed limit.