• Home
  • News
  • Shaping the Skies of Tomorrow
Airport, Atm, Business-industry-data-aerospace, Featured-articles, Features-people, Global, Singapore

Shaping the Skies of Tomorrow

  • 01 Oct 2025

Patrick Ky on ICAI’s Vision for Aviation Innovation

In a rapidly evolving aviation landscape, innovation is no longer a luxury—it’s a necessity. At the forefront of this transformation in the Asia-Pacific region is the International Centre for Aviation Innovation (ICAI), established by the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) to foster international collaboration and accelerate the development of next-generation air navigation and smart airport solutions.

Leading ICAI is Patrick Ky, a seasoned industry leader best known for his tenure as Executive Director of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Now based in Singapore, Ky brings a wealth of regulatory and innovation experience to ICAI’s mission of bridging global partnerships and translating cutting-edge research into operational reality.

In this conversation with Aerospace Singapore, Patrick Ky shares ICAI’s strategic approach to innovation, opportunities in Asia, and the role of international cooperation in shaping the future of aviation. He also reflects candidly on the gaps in the local ecosystem and calls for greater startup and SME involvement in building agile, scalable aviation solutions.

Photo of Patrick Ky. Photo: Aerophotoworks for AAIS

Tell us about the ICAI’s approach to driving aviation innovation in the region. How are ICAI’s efforts benefiting the global industry?

ICAI is a newly established entity, created around 15 months ago. The rationale for setting it up separately from the CAAS was to focus on the the international dimension. CAAS recognised that there are limits to what can be achieved solely within Singapore, especially in aviation innovation. So, the question became: how do we bring in international partners?

That’s why ICAI was formed—to enable collaboration between international partners and Singaporean stakeholders. The second key point is that while innovation itself is relatively easy, implementation is much more challenging. One of our core mandates is to translate innovation into operational reality. To do this, we need strong partnerships with private companies and the broader ecosystem, which will help ensure smoother implementation of the tools developed, downstream.

Are there any plans for a physical ICAI lab?

Yes, we are currently exploring the establishment of a physical innovation lab. This would allow us to test new types of vehicles, such as those used for transporting luggage to aircraft. To do this effectively, we need a real-world facility as there are limits to what can be achieved through simulation alone.

For example, we need to understand how these vehicles interact with airside frequency and other operational constraints. We plan to rent a space where we can conduct these tests.

Can you tell us about some of the other research areas ICAI plans to lead?

Our initial focus is on air traffic control and traffic management. These were already active areas in Singapore, and ICAI is now taking over and expanding them. A key difference is our emphasis on building international partnerships. We are working to strengthen relationships with countries in Southeast Asia and the broader Asia-Pacific region.

We also aim to establish a core competence in air traffic management research within Singapore. Institutions like NTU have already made significant contributions with new concepts and ideas. Maintaining this competence is a major priority for us.

The second area we’re launching is airport-related innovation. The first aspect is data sharing—what we call Total Airport Management. We’ve begun discussions with several partners about their willingness to share data, and I can tell you, it’s not easy. One of our goals is to create a digital twin of the airport, which would allow us to simulate scenarios like power outages and reconfigure operations accordingly.

The next focus is on airside processes—baggage handling, refuelling, and the operation of airside vehicles. I’m sure you’ve experienced this: your flight arrives, but it sits at the gate because no one is available to open it. We want to automate these processes so that a human operator isn’t required to manually operate the aerobridge. This is where robotics comes in. 

The third area is weather. Singapore experiences frequent rain and thunderstorms, which can halt airport operations due to lightning risks. Weather prediction is therefore a critical research area. We’ve partnered with the Meteorological Services Singapore to develop a dedicated Aviation Weather Programme. This will provide tailored forecasting solutions for aviation, helping us optimise operations based on the best available data.

So, in summary, our major areas of activity are 1) Air Traffic Management, 2) Total Airport Management which include digitalisation of processes and robotics, and 3) Weather. 

On air traffic management, what specific challenges are you looking to address through research?

There are three major challenges we’re tackling. 

First, reducing airborne holding. Holding patterns waste both time and fuel, resulting in unnecessary CO₂ emissions. Eliminating or minimising these holds is crucial.

Second, increasing automation. We need to enhance automation to boost the throughput of the air traffic control system. Traffic in this region is expected to triple over the next 20 years, but we can’t simply triple the number of air traffic controllers. Each controller manages a segment of airspace, and dividing those sectors further would reduce operational flexibility. So, instead, we must enhance controller productivity through automation—enabling them to manage more traffic without a proportional increase in headcount.

Third, international coordination. The way aircraft arrive in Singapore airspace impacts how we manage it. If traffic is well-organised before it reaches us, it’s easier to process. So, we’re exploring how neighbouring states can help reduce traffic complexity before it enters Singapore airspace. 

This requires upstream cooperation with neighbouring states. Of course, this raises the question: what’s in it for them? If they take on more work to help us, we must reciprocate by helping reduce their complexity as well.

You mentioned CO₂ emissions. Are you at all concerned that broader sustainability goals could be sidelined due to political or market pressures?

No, not really. Improvements in operational efficiency, such as continuous descent or better routing can yield about a 10–15% reduction in CO₂ emissions. But that alone isn’t enough. The real game-changer is sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), which can lead to carbon-neutral operations and significantly reduce emissions. On that front, there is strong alignment among decision-makers. The challenge lies in the supply of green fuel—the market isn’t functioning efficiently yet.

 Is that within ICAI’s scope?

No, our focus is more on operational and technological innovations.

Terminal 5 is expected to be operational in the 2030s, which gives us only seven to eight years for the technology to mature enough for full-scale deployment. Is this influencing technology selection for the project?

I don’t think technology is the issue. It’s more about integrating existing technologies into a cohesive framework of tools, processes, and standards. That takes time. We’ve launched a programme to do exactly this. For example, we’ve brought together Airbus and Boeing in one effort. With other partners including Changi and Narita Airport, and Singapore players SATS, CAG and SIA, we are developing tools that are feasible for deployment within the next five years. 

The technology is largely available—we need some AI, data, and sensors, and those components are already there. 

The bigger challenge is in selecting the right partners to develop specific solutions, such as robotics, and ensuring there is a viable business case. Developers need a large enough customer base so that the costs are not borne solely by one airport. That’s what we are currently exploring.

Patrick Ky speaking at the Opening Fireside Chat at inter airport Southeast Asia 2025. Photo: Aerophotoworks for AAIS

How can the wider industry, including the association’s members and SMEs, get involved?

First is the translation of research concepts into working tools. In air traffic management, there are many ideas that don’t require a large player. SMEs can help develop tools in under two years. We recently issued a call for tenders, but the response was underwhelming—just six or seven proposals, and very few from SMEs. Perhaps we didn’t advertise it widely enough. I welcome help in reaching more companies across the wider ecosystem.

Second is in robotics. We will soon face questions around how to build systems that implement the concepts defined by airport operators. Some exhibitors at this event may already have near-ready solutions. But more often, we need agile companies capable of prototyping new tools quickly. Again, this is an area where SMEs can play a vital role.

In that vein, are there any particular challenges working with local companies or trying to foster innovation in Singapore?

I was initially surprised by the relatively small number of aviation-focused startups in Singapore. Coming from Germany and France, where there are numerous incubators, I found the ecosystem here less organised. There are startups, but not in a structured way. I think more effort is needed.

Let me give you a simple example. The Meteorological Services Singapore has 10 years of lightning strike data. Analysing this to identify patterns—seasonal trends, time of day, high-risk areas—should be straightforward. It would allow us to map lightning strike zones, especially around airports. But I couldn’t find a single company to do it. In France, I could go to a startup and it would be done in a few months. Here, only large firms are available, and they are not interested in small-scale projects. Universities could do it, but they need to fit it into an academic framework, which takes time.

It was frustrating. And this is just one example. We have other topics where we’d like a quick prototype to test an idea. In Singapore, it is difficult. Maybe I am not yet connected to the right organisations, but it is a challenge. 

What do you think is needed to strengthen Singapore’s innovation ecosystem, particular for aviation and aerospace?

We are trying to create a Centre of Excellence on the airport side—a hub that combines research, education, and industry partnerships. That might be what is needed: a single organisation capable of coordinating all aspects. Education feeds into innovation, and without both, you don’t get startups. We need a catalyst that brings everything together.

You’ve had extensive experience with EASA. How has that shaped your approach to international aviation regulation and innovation at ICAI?

When I was at EASA, we were just beginning to explore AI. The big question was: how do you ensure an AI-based system is safe? It is not a trivial issue. But through our work, we found that safety can be built into AI if regulators are involved early.

That is what we are doing at ICAI. We involve CAAS, Singapore’s regulator, from the outset of every innovation project. That way, when we invest millions into a solution, we don’t end up being told, “This isn’t safe.” So early engagement ensures a smoother, safer process.

Another key lesson is that innovation should not be seen as a threat to safety. Quite the opposite, it can enhance it. Take lightning strikes, for example. Robots can operate safely in conditions where humans cannot, thereby increasing safety rather than compromising it.

The Asia-Pacific region differs from Europe in terms of regulatory frameworks. How do you foresee collaboration and partnership in Asia in the context of innovation? Do you anticipate any challenges?

Yes, there is a fundamental difference between Europe and ASEAN. In Europe, you have the European Commission and EU laws that essentially define how cooperation takes place. This has pros and cons. The advantage is that it is relatively easy to adopt common standards and agree on timelines. The downside is that countries often comply because they are required to, not necessarily because they are fully committed.

In ASEAN, there is no such overarching regulatory body. That means any change must be approached as an international effort—something that’s seen as mutually beneficial by multiple stakeholders. This makes collaboration more challenging, but it is also a strength. Once you’ve convinced all parties to come on board, their commitment tends to be deeper. You gain genuine buy-in.

That is exactly what we’re trying to build with ICAI. As I mentioned earlier, if you want your neighbours to work for you, you must also be willing to work for them. We’ve started taking steps in that direction. For example, the ICAI is planning to sign a reciprocal agreement with Vietnam: they support us in certain areas, and we support them in others. It’s a win-win, and that’s where our strength lies—in building committed, collaborative partnerships.

Dawn at Changi Airport airside. Photo: AAIS

You May Also LikeAAIS

Previous Article
Next Article