9.4 - Blog: The Future of the UAS

In this module, you are expected to create a blog post about an article centered on the future of unmanned aerial systems and where UAS technology is going to advance in the next five to ten years. It should also include aspects regarding new or modifying current regulations to aid in the implementation of the unmanned aerial systems into the national airspace. Your blog post should be 300-400 words long. Support your blog post with credible references. Note: The article should not be older than 12 months.

            With the number of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) continuously growing every day in both the military and civilian sectors, the future for UAVs is bright. In the military, UAVs are used for reconnaissance, environmental monitoring, border patrol, search and rescue operations, disaster relief, and tracking and monitoring high value targets (Zhahir, Razali, & Ajir, 2016). Within the next decade, civilian applications in agriculture, energy, utilities, mining, construction, real estate, news and media, and film production are expected to rapidly grow due to the lower costs, size, and agility of UAVs. In addition to growing applications, the UAV industry will become a multi-billion dollar industry that will also provide many people with jobs. In order for integration of UAVs into the National Airspace System (NAS) to occur, sense and avoid (SAA) technology must be incorporated into UAV systems.

            In the coming years, the FAA plans to fully integrate UAVs into the NAS. This not only takes massive amounts of time effort, it also requires proper and careful planning. New regulations will have to be developed to safely incorporate UAVs into the NAS. Currently, UAVs are restricted to 400 feet above ground level (AGL) and must remain within sight of the operator. With the rapid growth of civilian UAVs, the FAA must develop regulation concerning the use of SAA technology and beyond line of sight (BLOS) operations. The FAA cannot expect all civilian UAV operators to act responsibly all the time, and there are already many reports in the past several years about small civilian UAVs flying close to airports and manned aircraft. There have been reports of small UAVs at altitudes of 10,000 feet.

            SAA technology requires that several sensors be employed onto a UAV to collect and record data along a flight path (Zhahir et al., 2016). With SAA, the sensors on the UAV are expected to detect, identify, and avoid any obstacles or threats that could damage the UAV, a manned aircraft, or harm a civilian on the ground. Zhahir, Razali, & Ajir (2016) state that the primary challenges in the implementation of collision avoidance technology into UAV systems are their size, weight, and electrical power consumption. The payload capacities of small civilian UAVs restrict SAA technology because the sensors must be lightweight and consume low levels of power. ADS-B and TCAS have been identified as solutions for SAA technology, but ADS-B and TCAS require that other aircraft be equipped with this technology to sense other aircraft. 

            Figure 1: A simple diagram demonstrating how SAA works. Note: Adapted [reprinted] from “Current development of UAV sense and avoid system” by Zhahir, Razali, & Ajir (2016).

             The authors of this article recommend a new type of sensor development technique. “Sensor fusion offers a great opportunity to overcome the physical limitations of the sensing systems. It combines information from a number of different sensors to provide a robust and complete description of the flying environment that is rapidly changing” (Zhahir et al., 2016, pg. 3). This type of sensor is still in infancy, and it will require multiple sensors in one system to improve detection rates while also minimizing errors in tracking. Sensor fusion requires that the main sensor board operate in real time with embedded system programming. This technique will require high processing power when it comes to capturing and processing various signals from multiple sensors on the UAV (Zhahir et al., 2016). 

References

Zhahir, A., Razali, A., & Ajir, M. M. (2016, October). Current development of UAV sense and avoid system. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 152, No. 1, p. 012035). IOP Publishing.

5.3 - Blog UAS Use

In this module, you are expected to create a blog post about an article centered on the current use of unmanned aerial systems. Focus your research on the effectiveness of these unmanned aerial systems when compared to alternative methods (e.g., manned aircraft performing role, performing manually without aircraft, etc.). Your blog post should be 300-400 words long. Support your blog post with credible references. Note: The article should not be older than 12 months.

UAS and Wildlife Research

            Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) usage in the United States and the military is growing rapidly. UAS have many uses in the commercial sector and one area where UAS usage could grow is in the area of wildlife ecology. UAS can prove to be powerful tools for remote-sensing data at fine spatial and temporal scales (Christie, Gilbert, Brown, Hatfield, Hanson, 2016). As the uses for UAS grow, manned aircraft applications are being used primarily for long range missions due to the ability to cover large distances. UAS are increasingly replacing manned fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters that normally survey animals and plants for research, conservation, and management purposes. Whereas manned aircraft can cover large distances/large areas, these aircraft can disturb wildlife and are dangerous for the line of work that biologists work in (Christie et al., 2016). Due to the costs of manned aircraft flight, many wildlife researchers are turning to small multicopter or fixed-wing UAS due to several factors; affordability and maneuverability. These UAS are smaller and considerably quieter than manned aircraft which have been known to disturb wildlife during research.

            Small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are nice cost-effective, fuel-efficient, and able to fly into dangerous or inhospitable areas that manned aircraft could not reach or could not fly into due to known hazards (Christie et al., 2016). UAVs are operated at a fraction of the cost of manned aircraft and can follow precise flight paths designed by the operator. The lack of a human within the aircraft allows the UAV to fly at lower altitudes without risking the operator’s life. UAVs that carry remote sensing equipment onboard the aircraft have increased precision and accuracy of the estimates of wildlife population sizes; thermal cameras are one piece of equipment that allows the researcher to detect animals due to heat signatures (Christie et al., 2016). “Similar to having a security camera record criminal activity, a permanent recording of an ecological or wildlife survey provides an objective, enduring record of the organism of interest for future reference, data sharing, and further analysis (Christie et al., 2016, pg. 242).

            The current limitations for UAS usage and wildlife research consists of the difficulties of obtaining permits to fly in wildlife areas, limited survey range, and data processing time (Christie et al., 2016). Weather has also proven to be an issue for small UAS that have limited battery power. Many of the limitations currently experienced by wildlife researchers have to do with the emerging technologies within current UAS systems. As battery life improves and government authorities in the United States allow for beyond line of sight operations, the limitations currently being experienced may become a thing of the past. Christie et al (2016) point out that the current limitations of UAS mean UAS are best suited to situations where it can be launched from sea based platforms close to the targets. As technology advances and government regulations are changed, it is likely that wildlife researchers will utilize UAVs more frequently for research, conservation, and management purposes. 

References

Christie, K. S., Gilbert, S. L., Brown, C. L., Hatfield, M., & Hanson, L. (2016). Unmanned aircraft systems in wildlife research: current and future applications of a transformative technology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(5), 241-251.

2.3-Blog: Unmanned Aerial Systems

In this activity, you will create a blot post identifying a specific category associated with the integration of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS; e.g., sense and avoid [SAA]). Research information about the legislative and technological requirements that have been (or are expected to be) put in place to accommodate the identified category. Remember to focus your research on a single aspect of UAS integration (e.g., lost link, see/sense and avoid, automated operation, etc.). You are encouraged to find multiple sources of information to support your blog post.

Detect, Sense, and Avoid Technology

            There are many challenges associated with unmanned aerial systems (UAS) integration into the national airspace system (NAS). The number of UAS in the United States is growing at a rapid pace due to many small systems being cheap and easily accessible. These challenges appear to be centered on the lack of detect, sense, and avoid technology. According to Kim Williams, the former head of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) UAS integration office, detect and avoid is the biggest technical hurdle when it comes to integration of UAS into the NAS (Echodyne, 2016). With unmanned aircraft operating near manned aircraft, UAS must have some sort of detection system that warns the operator about oncoming traffic or nearby traffic that could cause an accident. Detect, sense, and avoid technology is the solution to preventing accidents between unmanned aircraft and manned aircraft alike. This technology should allow autonomous UAS to avoid obstacles and other aircraft and should also alert the operator of any potential hazards within the surrounding airspace to prevent accidents. The current issue with detect, sense, and avoid technology is that civilian UAS do not have this valuable technology implemented into the system software. Due to increasing numbers of UAS in the skies in the United States, the FAA understands that the need for detect, sense, and avoid technology is vital to maintaining the safety levels within the NAS.

            Legislation for detect, sense, and avoid technology is still being created. The legislation that must be kept in mind coincides with manned aircraft flight rules. 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 91 subpart B outlines specific requirements for basic flight within the NAS. Without detect, sense, and avoid technology, UAS cannot follow the regulations listed in 14 CFR 91,113 which contains information about the right of way rules for aircraft. For example, UAS cannot currently maintain vigilance during flight and also cannot follow right of way rules. An issue that must be addressed in the near future is how UAS will be classified in the NAS. Will they have their own class (such as balloon, glider, airship, or aircraft) and how will right of way rules be designed if UAS have their own class? According to 14 CFR 91.113, the pilot of an aircraft should see and avoid other aircraft in the same airspace (14 CFR 91.113, n.d.). Without detect, sense, and avoid technology, the operator of a UAS would be required to follow basic right of way rules. This could prove to be difficult due to bandwidth limitations between the ground control station (GCS) and the UAS, line of sight or beyond line of sight operations, the weather conditions present at the time of UAS flight, and the size of the screen the operator is using to conduct a flight.

            There are several solutions available that could act as detect, sense, and avoid technology, but ADS-B appears to be the primary choice. ADS-B is a growing technology and will play a big role in the transformation of the NAS into the NextGen system. ADS-B has been designed to allow individual aircraft to report their global positioning system (GPS) locations within a networked environment (Zimmerman, 2013). Continuous updates to aircraft position will allow pilots of manned aircraft and operators of UAS to have better situational awareness regarding the positioning of other aircraft. According to Zhao, Gu, Hu, Lyu, & Wang (2016), ADS-B is of great interest due to its small size, low weight, and low power consumption when compared to other alternatives to ADS-B. ADS-B would be a viable option due to its low costs and lightweight components; however, ADS-B could prove difficult to implement due to integrity, confidentiality, and availability (Sampigethaya & Pooyendran, 2012). Another issue that is present with ADS-B is that this technology cannot detect things such birds, power lines, communications towers, or aircraft without ADS-B. This is a severe limitation that could prove to be dangerous for the manned aircraft/UAS and people on the ground.

            While ADS-B is a viable option if all manned aircraft and UAS are required to have it equipped on-board, this will not always be the case. There are several companies that are developing a radar based sense and avoid system that would be able to detect all hazards during flight, not just other aircraft equipped with ADS-B. Echodyne is a business that creates radar and utilizes high performance scanning radars to detect hazardous for various vehicles. Radar is the only sensor that can reliably perform all detect, sense, and avoid responsibilities in all weather conditions and ranges for safe UAS operation in the NAS (Echodyne, 2016). Echodyne has developed a radar system for small and media sized UAS to electronically scan for all hazards within the field of view of the UAS. This emerging technology could prove to be a more reliable technology when it comes to UAS integration into the NAS. Future developments of detect, sense, and avoid technology could be centered around radar based systems due to the ability of both the UAS and the operator to see all hazards in the surround airspace, not just other aircraft equipped with technology such as ADS-B.

            The mission planning and control station (MPCS) will be a critical element when detect, sense, and avoid technology is implemented into UAS. The MPCS will allow the operator to monitor the payloads of the UAS (ADS-B or on-board radar) along with other critical information seen on the cameras and other sensors. For UAS operations in which an operator is in direct control of the UAS, the MPCS should contain the means to receive the down coming signal from the UAS while also being able to display the information that is being collected by the payload. The MPCS should also allow the operator to playback the recorded video. For civilian operators, a memory card and capable computer should be purchased so all sensor information could be captured and replayed as necessary. This would also allow the data captured to be edited for further analysis (Fahlstrom & Gleason, 2012).

 

References

Echodyne. (2016, May 2). Echodyne Announces Development of Airborne Detect and Avoid Radar for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Retrieved from http://echodyne.com/echodyne-announces-development-of-airborne-detect-and-avoid-radar-for-small-unmanned-aircraft-systems/

Fahlstrom, P. G., & Gleason, T. J. (2012). Introduction to UAV systems (4th ed.). Chichester: Wiley.

Sampigethaya, R., & Poovendran, R. (2012). Enhancing ADS-B for future UAV operations. doi:10.2514/6.2012-2420

Zhao, C., Gu, J., Hu, J., Lyu, Y., & Wang, D. (2016). Research on cooperative sense and avoid    approaches based on ADS-B for unmanned aerial vehicle. Presented at the 2016 IEEE Chinese Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, Nanjing, China.             doi:10.1109/CGNCC.2016.7829019

Zimmerman, J. (2013, January 17). ADS-B 101: what it is and why you should care. Retrieved from http://airfactsjournal.com/2013/01/ads-b-101-what-it-is-and-why-you-should-care/

14 CFR 91.113 - Right-of-way rules: Except water operations. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.113

ASCI 637- 1.5 Blog: UAS Strengths and Weaknesses

The use of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) continues to grow beyond military applications with the emergence of the commercial civilian markets. These systems are being used as platforms to support aerial photography, mapping and surveying, precision agriculture, border protection, disaster recovery, and more. In this module, create a blog post examining a military UAS mission and comparing it to a similar civil mission or task. Identify the strengths and weaknesses that current platform (or platforms) brings (bring) to the military mission, identify how these would relate to the civil mission, and discuss how they can be overcome or mitigated. Conclude your post with your thoughts on future applications for such future cross over/correlated missions/tasks.

           The RQ-7 Shadow is a tactical military unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in service in Afghanistan and Iraq that has many different potential applications in both the military and the civilian sector. The RQ-7 Shadow has flown over 750,000 hours in more than 173,000 missions throughout its time in the Middle East (Shadow 200 RQ-7, n.d.). The Shadow is utilized by the Army and the Marines and is used for target acquisition, battle damage assessments, and battle management (Shadow 200 RQ-7, n.d.). The Shadow can be operated up to 125 kilometers via line of sight (LOS) operations from a tactical operations center in order to locate and identify targets at altitudes of 8,000 feet. The Shadow has an endurance of 9 hours, can carry payloads of 95 pounds, fly at altitudes of 18,000 feet, and conduct short field landings with an arresting gear (Shadow v2, n.d.).

            Due to the long range flights, 9 hour endurance, payload carrying capacity, and LOS operational capabilities, the RQ-7 Shadow would be an excellent platform used to conduct search and rescue missions in the United States after a natural disaster such as a hurricane. It could also be used to conduct damage assessments over long distances for areas that are heavily affected by things such as hurricanes, earthquakes, or other heavy storms that cause massive amounts of damage. The strengths of this UAV for target acquisition are that it can fly at various altitudes up to 18,000 feet and cover ample distances that would be necessary to find a target or a lost person during a search and rescue mission. The payload carrying capacity of the Shadow would also allow for supplies to be taken to areas where landings are suitable and due to the short takeoff and landing distances of the Shadow, carrying necessary supplies to those in need would allow the Shadow to be an excellent UAV for use in the aftermath of natural disasters. At the end of December 2010, the Shadow fleet had the lowest accident rate in its operational history, approaching 29 incidents per 100,000 flight hours (Hawkins, 2011). Engine improvements increased the reliability of the Shadow; before the oil pump was modified, the Shadow was restricted due to temperature limitations. This could have been an issue in the United States, but improvements have expanded the mission capabilities of the RQ-7 Shadow (Hawkins, 2011).

            There are many uses available for the Shadow, and for use during and after natural disasters, there seem to be few weaknesses. One weakness that would be relevant to the safety of other aircraft within the NAS would be the lack of detect, sense, and avoid technology in UAV systems. The skies in the United States are crowded; without aircraft avoidance systems, the Shadow would need to be monitored by ATC while the operator maintains radar contact. This issue is also relevant to missions overseas and can be highlighted in operations in the United States. According to defenseindustrydaily.com, there has been at least one incident involving the RQ-7 Shadow and a Blackhawk helicopter. The Shadow does not have collision avoidance technology, so the operator was not aware of the helicopter. The helicopter nearly crashed and while the Shadow is not very large, it is bigger than a human being and this is a real danger to other aircraft (Field report on, 2005). To overcome these issues, development and implementation of detect, sense, and avoid technology should continue in order to ensure safe integration of UAS into the NAS, especially for operations over 400 feet AGL.

            I believe the operation of the Shadow in the United States during times of disaster would be an excellent way to conduct surveys of land while also searching for missing people. Manned aircraft operations are expensive and loiter times for UAVs are greater than those of manned aircraft. UAV operators could switch off after several hours of flight while remaining in the air to allow for greater search times for people in need. For military operations, the Shadow is perfect for short range flights in order to identify targets for troops on the ground. UAVs are increasing in number every day, especially in the United States. Eventually there will be UAVs being utilized due to the many advantages of UAV flight compared to manned aircraft flight.

References

Field Report on Raven, Shadow UAVs From the 101st. (2005, November 15). Retrieved from             http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/field-report-on-raven-shadow-uavs-from-the-101st-01487/

Hawkins, K. (2011, March 4). Shadow defies gravity with success. Retrieved from             https://www.army.mil/article/52860

Shadow v2. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.textronsystems.com/what-we-do/unmanned-         systems/shadow-family

Shadow 200 RQ-7 Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.army-technology.com/projects/shadow200uav/

9.7: Case Analysis Effectiveness

9.7: Case Analysis Effectiveness

Joseph Younts 

Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Worldwide

ASCI 638: Shawn Wynn 

May 2017

Case Analysis Effectiveness

            This is the second graduate course that has required a case analysis to be developed on a specific research topic of this author’s choosing. For the case analysis for ASCI 638: Human Factors in Unmanned Aerial Systems, this author chose to write on the topic of fatigue levels associated with UAS operators, particularly within the military due to commercial UAV flights in the U.S. being limited in the amount of flight time that can be achieved. The case analysis for this course allowed this author to look at the issue of fatigue and UAV operators and determine what the issues were, why the issues were significant, alternative actions that could be taken to reduce fatigue levels, and a recommendation of my choosing to prevent fatigue from leading to UAV accidents. This author found the case analysis to be an effective tool when conducting research on the chosen topic. This author also found this case analysis to be easier than the case analysis in ASCI 530 (this author wrote on detect, sense, and avoid technology) due to the relationship between fatigue in manned aircraft pilots and UAV operators. Fatigue is an issue that has been explored in great detail in manned aircraft operations, but this author did spend some time searching for relevant information on the topic of fatigue for UAS operators. Once relevant research was found, the alternative actions and recommendations sections were much simpler to discuss due to the fact that fatigue in unmanned and manned operations can be prevented in a similar manner.

            A case analysis is an excellent tool for not only conducting research on a topic, but also for understanding a decision making process. This author is currently a full time college student working on his Bachelor's and Master's degrees, but this author does see the potential for utility in what will hopefully be his future line of work; a professional pilot. The case analysis tool allows a student to move away from the standard format of a research paper and focus in a relevant issues related to UAS operations. This author did find it hard to write the recommendations section of the case analysis due to the simple fact that the answer to the reduction of fatigue in UAS operators appears to be centered around healthy eating habits, exercise, and proper sleep. These methods can be directly applied to manned aircraft operations and have been for years. This author was able to take some ideas from manned operations such as bunk sleep, cockpit napping (or for UAS operations, ground control station napping), short breaks, social interaction, and even development of new work schedules.

            A case analysis allows a student to look at a problem from different perspectives. There may be different methods to solve a problem, but the student must choose two actions that are most likely to solve the issue in a realistic manner. In the workplace, one worker will not have all the answers to a problem. There will be times in which unique ideas will be the best way to solve a problem. The case analysis tool used in this course allows a student to look at the different perspectives surrounding an issue. As far as utility in this author's future career, this tool will allow the author to logically develop a mental model to solve problems on the ground and potentiality during flight, but checklists that have been developed over time should have the answers to most issues that occur in the cockpit.

            The layout of the case analysis is set in an orderly fashion that flows logically. This author greatly appreciated the peer reviews that were conducted on the abstract and the rough draft. Other students in the class had some interesting ideas that helped this author complete the case analysis. As stated in this authors' last review of the case analysis tool in ASCI 530, this author would recommend a final peer review of the final draft of the case analysis. There does not need to be a defense for this peer review, but having an extra set of graduate school level eyes review the paper can be beneficial. This author also does not feel that 20 pages is necessary for the case analysis, but reaching this page length is dependent upon the chosen topic. As stated previously, this author had trouble reaching the page limit for ASCI 530, but for this class, this author was able to create a case analysis with 27 complete pages of information due to the available information on manned aircraft fatigue and countermeasures for preventing fatigue. For students choosing a topic for the case analysis, a topic with plenty of information readily available should be chosen. This should make the process of reaching the page limit easier.

Activity 8.5 Research: UAS Crew Member Selection

8.5 Research: UAS Crew Member Selection

Joseph Younts

Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Worldwide

ASCI 638- Shawn Wynn

May 2017

UAS Crew Member Selection

            Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) crew member selection is necessary for safe UAV operations within the national airspace system (NAS). Crewmember selection requirements can differ between the various UAVs used in the military and civilian sectors. Crew size and composition can have a major impact on the ability of the crews to execute missions (Marshall, Barnhart, Hottman, & Shappee, 2012). There are multiple factors that determine how a crew is selected for UAV missions. While some small and micro UAVs can be operated alone, may systems require that the flight crew consist of several operators including external and internal pilots, a payload operator, a reconnaissance operator, and if needed, a mission planner (Marshall et al., 2012). Communication is critical during mission planning, during flight, and during post flight briefings. In order to prevent missions from experiencing difficulties, crew teams should be trained for various situations that could occur during a mission.

            The Insitu ScanEagle is a UAV that is used to provide daytime and nighttime intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance for both government and civilian applications (Boeing, n.d.). The UAV requires at least two operators for flight operations; one operator must manage the flight paths and other systems while the second operator uses the camera systems (Lum, 2009). The ScanEagle can remain in the air for over 24 hours, has a ceiling of 19,500 feet, can fly at a maximum speed of 80 knots, and cruise at 50-60 knots (Boeing, n.d.). The General Atomics Ikhana was developed to support science missions, demonstrate advanced aeronautical technologies, and serve as a testbed to develop new technologies to improve UAVs (NASA, 2014). The Ikhana operates at altitudes greater than 40,000 feet, has over 3,000 pounds of radar, sensors, communications, and imaging equipment on board, and can remain aloft for more than 24 hours (NASA, 2014). The Ikhana requires two operators for takeoffs and landings, but only one operator can fly the aircraft at a time. A single operator can handle the aircraft during flight and the primary operator may only require assistance with takeoffs and landings (Levine, n.d.).

            UAS operators have specific requirements that must be followed before flight. VFR UAS operations may be authorized by using ground-based or airborne visual observers onboard a dedicated chase aircraft (FAA, 2008). During line of sight operations, a visual observer is needed to comply with see and avoid flight rules. Operators of UAVs are responsible for the aircraft in the same manner that manned aircraft pilots are. The pilot in command (PIC) is responsible for the flight operations. The PIC can have supplemental pilots to provide any assistance, but the PIC retains the responsibility of the flight, no matter who is piloting the aircraft (FAA, 2008). The PIC must not perform flight duties for more than one UAS at a time. The PIC is not allowed to perform concurrent duties as a pilot and an observer (FAA, 2008). Not all UAV operations are the same; some operations will require a pilot certificate while others may not. A pilot may need to have a pilot certificate based on certain factors. These factors include the location of the planned operations, mission profile, size of the UAV, and whether the operation is conducted within or beyond line of sight (BLOS) (FAA, 2008). If the PIC does not hold a pilot certificate, the pilot may be allowed to fly smaller UAVs while operating below certain altitudes while the UAV is controlled within line of slight (FAA, 2008). For BLOS operations, the PIC must hold an instrument rating issued by the FAA.

            The following information has been taken from the FAA document “Interim Operational Approval Guidance 08-01” and retrieved from https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=723339.

Operations requiring a pilot certificate: The PIC shall hold, at a minimum, an

FAA pilot certificate under the following circumstances:

• All operations approved for conduct in Class A, C, D, and E airspace.

• All operations conducted under IFR (FAA instrument rating required).

• All operations approved for nighttime operations.

• All operations conducted at joint use or public airfields.

• All operations conducted beyond line of sight.

• At any time the FAA has determined the need based on the UAS’ characteristics, mission profile, or other operational parameters.

            The PIC must be current before operating a UAV. At a minimum, the PIC must perform three takeoffs and landings to a full stop in the specific UAV within the previous 90 days (FAA, 2008). The same currency requirements are necessary for night flight for UAV operations. The PIC must have a valid Class 2 FAA medical certificate in their possession when acting as the PIC. UAS operators will also go through additional training after the certificate has been issued. For ScanEagle and Ikhana operations, the operator must have manufacturer specific training, demonstrate proficiency in the UAV, and perform testing related to the operation of the UAV (FAA, 2008). Supplemental operators are operators that augment the PIC. There is not a specific rating for supplemental operators to have; however, supplement operators must have completed private pilot ground school and also pass the written test (FAA, 2008). Supplemental operators must maintain currency in the UAS being operated, must have a valid Class 2 FAA medical, and be trained in all specific details of the UAS being operated (FAA, 2008). Observers of UAV operations also have specific requirements that must be followed. Observers are required to have a Class 2 medical and complete training relating to communications in order to remain clear of potential conflicting traffic. Communications training consists of the observer understanding 14 CFR 91.111, 14 CFR 91.113, and 14 CFR 91.155 (FAA, 2008).

            UAV operators of the Ikhana and ScanEagle should be highly qualified for the positions. According to a research study completed by Howse (2011), UAV operators who preferred the air vehicle operator role were described as having an affinity for planning and logic. Those who preferred the sensor operator role had an affinity for uncertainty. Hand eye coordination is an important trait to have when conducting UAV flight. Traits such as physical strength, endurance, hearing issues and color vision were not required at greater than average levels (Howse, 2011). Other traits that were important to have were patience and logic. Operators must have well-developed communication skills in order to properly and effectively communicate with others within the ground control station (GCS). Communication may be one of the most critical components of safe UAV operations.

            An attribute list developed by Chappelle et al., (2011), as cited in Howse (2011) contains 7 abilities that these authors felt were critical for UAV operators to possess. The abilities Chappelle et al., (2011) felt were critical for UAV operators to possess include cognitive proficiency, visual perception, attention, spatial processing, memory, reasoning, and psychomotor processing skills (Howse, 2011).  These authors felt cognitive proficiency is important due to unexpected situations that can arise during UAV flight. Speed and accuracy of information processing is a necessary attribute. Visual perception includes being able to scan and recognize targets during flight. Potential pilots of the Ikhana and ScanEagle must have well-developed attention spans and the ability to remain vigilant when there are multiple sources of visual and auditory information occurring at the same time. Operators should have the ability to mentally process 2 and 4 dimensional images. Memory is a critical skill to have during UAV flight. Visual and auditory memory is necessary due to the constant need to process important information (Howse, 2011). Reasoning means that the operator can process real time information and use deductive reasoning skills to solve problems that may arise during flight. Finally, psychomotor skills are needed and are a preferred trait because reaction time and fine motor dexterity could mean the difference between an accident occurring and the prevention of an accident (Howse, 2011). As a final note, it is critical that UAV operators are familiar with the tools and technology in the GCS and that each operator has the knowledge to operate the UAV.

References

Boeing. (n.d.). ScanEagle Unmanned Aircraft Systems . Retrieved from             http://www.boeing.com/farnborough2014/pdf/BDS/ScanEagle%20Backgrounder%20011 4.pdf

FAA. (2014, March 13). Interim Operational Approval Guidance 08-01. Retrieved from Interim   Operational Approval Guidance 08-01

Howse, W. R. (2011). Knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics for remotely piloted   aircraft pilots and operators (No. DAS-2011-04). DAMOS AVIATION SERVICES INC     GURNEE IL.

Ikhana Performance and Specifications. (2014, March 13). Retrieved from             https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/aircraft/Ikhana/performance.html

Levine, J. (n.d.). No One on Board: Ikhana Pilots Fly Aircraft from the Ground. Retrieved from             https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/X-Press/stories/2008/07_08_pilots.html

Lum, C. (2009, March 10). Coordinated Searching and Target Identification Using Teams of        Autonomous Agents (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 2009). (UMI No.            3356644 )

Marshall, D.M., Barnhart, R.K., Hottman, S.B., Shappee, E. (2012). Introduction to unmanned    aircraft systems. New York, NY: CRC Publishing.

Activity 7.6 Research: Operational Risk Management

7.6 Research: Operational Risk Management

Joseph Younts

Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Worldwide

ASCI 638: Shawn Wynn

May 2017

Operational Risk Management

            Operational Risk Management (ORM) is a tool used to systematically identify operational risks or benefits for specific situations. There are several goals of ORM. The objectives of the ORM process are “protecting people, equipment and other resources, while making the most effective use of them. Preventing accidents, and in turn reducing losses, is an important aspect of meeting this objective” (FAA, 2000, pg. 2). ORM has been designed to minimize the number of risks before a flight in order to reduce the number of potential mishaps while also safeguarding the lives of people on the ground. For this assignment, the RQ-7 Shadow has been chosen to discuss ORM in relation to safe operation of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).

            The RQ-7 Shadow is a small UAV that is also operated tactically in the military. It is operated by the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps. The Shadow is equipped with electro-optical and infrared sensor turret that has the ability to collect video during the day or night (RQ-7 Shadow UAV, n.d.). The Shadow is used for reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition. The Shadow is powered by a UEL AR-741 rotary engine and has a landing gear that does not retract. The UAV is capable of flying at 15,000 feet and has a flight time of 6 hours (RQ-7 Shadow UAV, n.d.). The UAV is launched from a conventional airstrip from a pneumatic catapult on a trailer that allows the Shadow to be launched at 60 knots in 15 feet. The Shadow can carry several payloads including lightweight electro-optical systems that allow the cameras to capture video in real time. 

            Figure 1. Specifications of the U.S. Army RQ-7 Shadow. Note: Image retrieved from RQ-7 Shadow UAV. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://olivedrab.com/idphoto/id_photos_uav_rq7.php

            ORM was developed to use specific tools to create a logical hazard analysis to prevent incidents and accidents. The first step in completing an ORM is to create a preliminary hazard list (PHL) that is used as a brainstorming tool used to identify initial safety issues early during UAV operations (Shappee, 2012). In order for a PHL to be effective, an organization must have a clear understanding of the issues facing the flight of a UAV. A PHL is broken down into several categories that ease the review of hazards in the surrounding area. These categories are broken down into hazards, probability, severity, and risk level. Hazards such as tress, power lines, poles antennas, or mountainous terrain should be evaluated and listed in the PHL. Probability levels will be listed to determine the likelihood of the hazard being encountered during flight. In the severity column, the seriousness of the hazard is evaluated. Finally, in the risk level column, an initial risk level based on the probability and severity will be calculated (Shappee, 2012). 

            Figure 2: Above is an example of a PHL combined with a PHL/A. Hazards will be identified, probabilities of encountering hazards will be calculated, severity of the hazard will be discussed, and the risk level will be calculated. Note: Reprinted [adapted] from Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft Systems, p. 125, by Shappee, E. (2012).  New York, NY.

            After completion of the PHL/A, the operational hazards review and analysis (OHR&A) is the next step in the process of creating a safe flight environment for a UAV. The OHR&A is used in the same manner as the PHL/A; however, the OHR&A will be used to determine if the identified mitigating actions from the PHL/A will be adequate when determining the safety of UAV flight (Shappee, 2012). If the actions suggested for reducing the hazard are not adequate, the hazard will be listed again. If the hazards have been modified, the OHR&A should have the modified item listed (Shappee, 2012). Following the example of the PHL/A, an analysis of an OHR&A has been completed. For the purposes of this assignment, the following hazards will be assessed in the OHR&A; thunderstorms in the area, trees, mountainous terrain with IFR weather, loss of signal, GCS mishaps, and mechanical failures.

            Figure 3: PHL/A complete with risks, hazards, probability, severity, risk level, mitigating actions, residual risk level, and additional notes before UAV flight. Mishap probability levels, mishap severity levels, and mishap risk assessments can be found in MIL-STD-882D/E. Note: Reprinted [adapted] from Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft Systems, p. 125, by Shappee, E. (2012).  New York, NY.

            Figure 4: Here is an example of a completed OHR&A for a RQ-1 Shadow. Note that risk levels and residual risk levels have changed as a result of the mitigating actions. Note: Reprinted [adapted] from Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft Systems, p. 127, by Shappee, E. (2012).  New York, NY.

            The final analysis needed to determine operational risks is an ORM assessment tool. This tool is designed to provide the operator with an overview of the operations before conducting the flight operation and to allow for safe and manageable information processing in real time (Shappee, 2012). This tool should aid the operator in the decision making process but it should not be the only tool to determine whether or not a flight should be conducted (a go/no-go decision).The RQ-7 Shadow is used during surveillance missions to monitor specific areas of land. For the purposes of this assignment, a Shadow will be conducting surveillance on a specific targeted area. The mission will be of supportive nature, there have been no hardware or software changes, the UAV will be operating in Class E or G airspace, the PIC has flown the aircraft, and the operation is being completed during the day. The weather is cloudy with thunderstorms in the area; visibility is between 6 and 9 miles. The operation will be conducted away from the storms. The winds are 11-15 knots, the winds forcast are greater than 15 knots, the ceiling is 3000 to 4900 feet in the air, and the weather has been deteriorating. The operator of the UAV will fly at an altitude between 1000 and 2900 feet above the ground where winds are light and variable. The crew members are current, the UAV will not operate in other airspaces, lost link procedures have been checked and verified, and the UAV will operate via line of sight.  The total for this mission is 29; this UAV flight will be classified as a low risk level flight according to Figure 8.3 from Shappee (2012). Figure 8.3 is listed below.

            Figure 5: A sUAS risk assessment table for a small UAV such as the RQ-1 Shadow. Operators can calculate the risk level of the flight after reviewing pertinent information relating to the flight. Note: Reprinted [adapted] from Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft Systems, p. 128, by Shappee, E. (2012).  New York, NY.

References

FAA.  (2000, December 30).  Operational risk management.  Retrieved froM https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/risk_management/ss_handbook/media/Chap15_1200.pdf

RQ-7 Shadow UAV. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_uav_rq7.php

Shappee, E. (2012).  Safety Assessments in R. Barnhart, S. Hottman, D. Marshall, & E. Shappee (Eds.), Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft Systems (pp. 123-135).New York, NY: CRC Publishing.