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.

Activity 6.6 Research: Automatic Takeoff and Landing

6.5 Research: Automatic Takeoff and Landing

Joseph Younts

Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Worldwide

ASCI 638: Shawn Wynn

April 2017

Automatic Takeoff and Landing

            The Boeing 737 is a manned aircraft that is capable of automatic landings at airports that are equipped for specific categories of instrument landing system (ILS) approaches. The various categories of ILS approaches have different visibility minimums, and depending of the requirements and certification of the aircraft, automatic landings are an option available to the pilots. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., a manufacturer of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) announced in 2012 that the MQ-9 Reaper had successfully completed 106 full stop automatic takeoff and landing capability (ATLC) landings. For manned aircraft, particularly for commercial airliners, automatic landings have proven to be useful in stressful situations, but the system allows the pilot to simply switch the autopilot off if the pilot wants to hand fly the aircraft to landing.

            The Boeing 737 autolanding features are normally completed during low visibility weather conditions. Autolanding was designed as a safety feature to allow an aircraft to be landed under poor weather conditions in which a conventional approach would be hazardous and insufficient (Autoland, 2015). The autopilot system on the 737 does have a feature that allows the pilot to disengage the autolanding feature in order to hand fly the aircraft in the event that the autolanding feature malfunctions. This procedure ensures that the pilot can be the final authority of the aircraft instead of relying on the aircraft computers to do all the work and function correctly 100% of the time. After an autolanding is completed, the pilot will take over the aircraft in order to taxi the aircraft off the runway and park the aircraft. “Some autoland systems require the pilot to steer the aircraft during the rollout phase on the runway after landing, among them Boeing´s fail passive system on the BOEING 737-700 NG, as the autopilot is not connected to the rudder” (Autoland, n.d., para. 2). The operations for autopilot for the 737 will be covered during training. The 737NG has several failsafe systems in the event that the autoland function fails. If the 2 backup systems fail, the system will recognize the issue and will about the autoland function (Autoland, 2015). This is not so much a limitation as much as it is an excellent design to prevent the aircraft from continuing an approach that the system cannot achieve. The pilot can take the aircraft and hand fly the approach, safely landing the aircraft. This author believes future variants of any Boeing aircraft should have the autoland system that is on the 737NG. The failsafe features on the 737 NG can prevent the approach from being continued while the pilot is alerted.

            The General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper is a UAV that was tested for automatic takeoff and landing capabilities in 2012. In 2012, General Atomics announced that the MQ-9 Reaper successfully completed 106 full-stop automatic takeoff and landings. These automatic takeoff and landings were the first for a multi mission aircraft (Predator B Demonstrates Automatic, 2012). General Atomics has stated that the aircraft was able to track the centerline, decelerate smoothly, and apply reverse thrusters and full brakes at the necessary speeds to slow the aircraft without damaging any systems on the aircraft (Predator B Demonstrates Automatic, 2012). After the 106 takeoff and landings, General Atomics began working to expand the abilities of the MQ-9 Reaper. For more effective takeoffs and landings, the Reaper is being designed to operate in higher winds, carry increased payloads, new GPS enhancements, and terrain avoidance systems with adjustable glideslope abilities (Predator B Demonstrates Automatic, 2012). The system being used on the Reaper has been developed from the Gray Eagle UAS which has over 10,000 automatic takeoff and landings.

            The ability to take off and land automatically would allow Reaper operators to use more runways while taking the control link off the frequency band (Drew, 2016). The senior director of strategic development, Chris Pehrson stated that MQ-9 Reapers have the ability to land on 3,000 foot runways. However, due to the UAV being operated manually from a control station, the Air Force requires an extra 1,000 feet of runway on each end of the runway to increase the safety margins during landings (Drew, 2016). This means the Reaper requires at least 5,000 feet of runway to land during manual operations. However, with the ability to take off and land automatically, the Reaper can land in the same position on the runway consistently, reducing the require amount of runway needed to land. This allows the Reaper to land at more airports around the world if the runway has at least 3,000 feet available for landings (Drew, 2016).

            The information regarding automatic takeoff and landings for the Reaper is scarce, but the design for the system would increase safety if the operator could take over the UAV in the event of a system failure during automatic takeoff and landings. However, the issue that arises with this lies with the length of the runway. If the required amount of runway for manual landings is 5,000 feet, an operator may be put into the position of having to fly to another airport which could be many miles away. Similarly to manned aircraft autopilot systems, the operator should be alerted in the event of a malfunction. This would increase safety and ensure that the aircraft does not crash by itself. In addition to standard training procedures, new and current operators will be required to learn the ins and outs of the abilities of the MQ-9 Reaper when it comes to automatic takeoffs and landings.

            Overall, for both manned and unmanned aircraft, the pilot or operator must understand the abilities of the aircraft in regards to takeoffs and landings. As technology changes, manned aircraft will become capable of automatic takeoffs. This will require aircraft manufacturers to create new fail-safe systems to prevent the aircraft from continuing an approach if there is a malfunction. The pilot or operator should be alerted and allowed to hand fly the approach to ensure a safe landing.

References

Autoland. (2015, July 11). Retrieved from http://www.boeing737pilot.net/autoland/

Autoland. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Autoland

Drew, J. (2016, May 04). USAF to automate MQ-9 takeoffs and landings. Retrieved from     https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-to-automate-mq-9-takeoffs-and-   landings-               424975/

Predator B Demonstrates Automatic Takeoff and Landing Capability. (2012, September 17).           Retrieved from http://www.ga.com/predator-b-demonstrates-automatic-takeoff-and-landing-capability

Activity 5.5- Research: Shift Work Schedule

5.4- Research: Shift Work Schedule

Joseph Younts

Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Worldwide

ASCI 638: Shawn Wynn

April 2017

Shift Work Schedule

            Fatigue and stress are concepts that are a part of everyone’s lives. Fatigue and stress cannot completely be avoided, especially during aviation related activities. Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) operators are susceptible to fatigue and stress due to long work shifts, boredom, emotional exhaustion, and burnout. After many hours of continued wakefulness, basic cognitive and physical functions can deteriorate. This is hazardous for UAV flight and is a danger for people on the ground. The United States military will continue to utilize UAVs for surveillance, intelligence gathering, and to carry payloads to use on enemy troops. According to Caldwell (2012), “as fatigue increases, accuracy and timing degrade, lower standards of performance are accepted, the ability to integrate information from individual flight instruments into a meaningful and overall pattern declines, and attention narrows” (Caldwell, 2012, para. 6). In one study conducted on F-117 pilots, when the pilots were deprived one night of sleep and tested on precision instruments, errors based on understanding of the instruments doubled and pilots reported feelings of depression and confusion (Caldwell, 2012). If manned aircraft pilots have these feelings after a single night of sleep loss, what happens to UAV operators when fatigue builds up due to shift work schedules?

            The schedule already provided in this assignment will inevitably lead to fatigue buildup over a short period of time. The teams of operators on the schedule work 6 days on and are off for two days. Each work shift is eight and a half hours. While many professions have work days this long, UAV operators have multiple responsibilities within the ground control station (GCS) that can cause fatigue and stress. In order to reduce the amount of fatigue and stress, the military must first consider the consequences of overworking UAV operators. 6 day work shifts will have a negative impact on the circadian rhythms of the operators. In a study conducted by Thompson, Lopez, Hickey, DaLuz, Caldwell, & Tvaryanas (2006), degradation of reaction times and vigilance performance for UAV operators was greatest over a shift interval for night shifts relative to day and evening shifts. Adverse effects of shift work were most pronounced on day and night shifts relative to evening shifts (Thompson et al., 2006). Part of this issue may be centered around circadian rhythms and the body’s reaction to sleeping during the day and working all throughout the night.

            This author has designed a new schedule that should reduce the amount of stress and fatigue experienced by UAV operators. While a large reduction in stress and fatigue will take time, if the operators are aware of the sources of stress and fatigue, appropriate steps can be taken to mitigate the sources. There is a benefit to the current schedule; having 4 teams helps to keep one team off duty frequently. The new schedule that has been developed is designed to prevent operators from working continuous day, swing, and night shifts. The reasoning behind this schedule change is to give operators plenty of time to recover after a long day. The operators should have time to relax, get adequate amounts of sleep, and spend time with family and friends. Day shifts are from 7:30 A.M. to 4 P.M., swing shifts are from 3:30 P.M. to 12:00 A.M., and night shifts are from 11:30 P.M. to 8:00 A.M. With teams working day shift one day, swing shift the next day, and the night shift the following day, operators have ample amounts of time to recover. With these changes, one team always has a day off while the other 3 teams work day, swing, and night shifts.

            The previous schedule only allowed each team to work 6 days on the same shift. This allows for disruptions in the circadian rhythms of each operator. With this new schedule, each team has a shift 3 days in a row with 1 day off in between the next shift date. Unlike other potential schedules that could have scattered work shifts, each team will work all 3 shifts with a guaranteed full day off. The sequence for this author’s schedule also allows for each team to work 3 shifts, take a day off, and then start the next set of work shifts during the day. By creating this schedule, operators should not have to worry about odd shift work that jumps from day to day. For example, each team will not have to worry about working a night shift, day shift, then a swing shift that could potentially interrupt circadian rhythms. By using this schedule, operators working a day shift will have a sufficient amount of time to relax, spend time with family, and get at least 8 hours of sleep. The same can be said for swing and night shift operators. The disadvantage of this schedule compared to the original schedule is that the shifts do change around every three days. Where the original schedule had consecutive work days, this author’s schedule rotates every day. Some operators may prefer to work 6 days on a specific shift and may feel that their personal fatigue levels are not high with a 6 on 2 off schedule. Another potential issue with both schedules is the shift work itself. Research conducted in 2003 found that in a 32 month study of fatigue and shift work schedules, rotating shift workers fatigue levels were 24 to 29 percent when compared to 18 percent for day shift workers and 19 percent for irregular shift workers (Jansen, Van Amelsvoort, Kristensen, Van den Brandt, & Kant, 2003).

            Overall, this author believes that the original shift work schedule did not allow for operators to have a sufficient amount of time to relax, eat, and achieve recommended amounts of sleep. Operators may also want to exercise and the new shift schedule will give operators that chance. With each team working a day, swing, and night shift in consecutive order, the days off will be spread out and each team can optimize rest time while reducing fatigue through rest and relaxation. While shift work has been identified to have mixed results in regards to fatigue, this shift work schedule should relieve each team of some stress and fatigue throughout the month.

            Below is an example of the schedule I have developed for this research paper. 

References

Caldwell, J. A. (2012, April 24). Crew Schedules, Sleep Deprivation, and Aviation Performance. Retrieved from https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/crew-schedules-sleep-deprivation-and-aviation-performance.html#.WPfnGvnyvIU

Jansen, N. W. H., Van Amelsvoort, L. G. P. M., Kristensen, T. S., Van den Brandt, P. A., &   Kant, I. J. (2003). Work schedules and fatigue: A prospective cohort study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60(Suppl 1), i47-i53.

Thompson, W. T., Lopez, N., Hickey, P., DaLuz, C., Caldwell, J. L., & Tvaryanas, A. P. (2006).        Effects of Shift Work and Sustained Operations: Operator Performance in Remotely Piloted Aircraft (OP-REPAIR). 1-53. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA443145

Activity 4.6 Research: UAS Beyond Line of Sight Operations

Activity 4.6- Research: UAS Beyond Line of Sight Operations

Joseph Younts

Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Worldwide

ASCI 638: Shawn Wynn

April 2017

  

UAS Beyond Line of Sight Operations

            The Global Hawk is a high altitude, long endurance (HALE) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) designed to collect reconnaissance information. The Global Hawk is used to collect extended reconnaissance which is responsive and sustained data that can be gathered and set back to the operator from anywhere in enemy territory on any given day, regardless of the weather (Pike, n.d.). The Global Hawk can operate at ranges up to 11,000 nautical miles from its home base and fly at altitudes greater than 60,000 feet for over 24 hours at a time (Gibbs, 2015). The Global Hawk has been outfitted with many technologies that make high altitude reconnaissance possible. The Global Hawk carries electro-optical technology, infrared sensors, and synthetic aperture radar and can be flown via line of sight (LOS) operations or beyond line of sight (BLOS) operations (Pike, n.d.). Line of sight operations are possible through the use of data link communications while beyond line of sight operations require the use of Ku-band SATCOM data links for command, control, and communication with the Global Hawk.

            The Global Hawk can be flown all over the world and is not restricted to LOS operations. In order to operate outside normal LOS operations, the Global Hawk was designed to use Ku-Band satellite connections to fly beyond the line of sight. SATCOM systems utilize satellites to allow the Global Hawk operator to use voice and data telecommunications. SATCOM can use geo-stationary or low-Earth orbits to control voice and data telecommunications (Duncan Aviation, 2015). SATCOM has several different parts ranging from space components to ground stations. “The space segment consists of the orbiting satellites and the ground segment is made up of control stations that maintain the satellites’ health in orbit and gateways that provide the interconnecting link to the groundbased telecommunications networks” (Duncan Aviation, 2012, pg. 3).

            The infrastructure for the Global Hawk is relatively simple. The system is made up of the Global Hawk, the payload on the aircraft, a ground control station and mission planning system, and data links that allow the Global Hawk to operate (Northrop Grumman, 2012). The Global Hawk has the ability to take off and land autonomously and can also be put into an autonomous flight mode during cruise settings thanks to a sophisticated mission and flight management system. Due to these autonomous abilities and advances in technology, the crew required to fly the Global Hawk is much smaller than the number of crew members required for other UAS. A smaller crew also means that the crew can provide more on station time than a larger crew required to support a manned aircraft platform (Northrop Grumman, 2012). The mission control element (MCE) is used to provide management of the Global Hawk and its sensors. The MCE controls the aircraft, any data links to the Global Hawk, and payloads being carried. Thanks to the MCE, the Global Hawk can transmit near real time information to operators and commanders at a moment’s notice anywhere in the world. Within the MCE, the crew conducts C3 operations (command, control, and communications), mission planning, and image quality control (Northrop Grumman, 2012).

            The Global Hawk has several support systems that help to safely execute missions. The systems on board the Global Hawk are similar to the support systems on manned aircraft. Processes and management systems used by supplies and maintenance are the same as manned aircraft, but the manuals for the Global Hawk are electronic and have virtual illustrations (Northrop Grumman, 2012). The crew chief has an important role to play during missions. The crew chief is responsible for connecting a vehicle test computer to the aircraft to monitor all systems and components during flight. Another laptop used during missions contains all maintenance manuals needed to troubleshoot any problems (Northrop Grumman, 2012).

            The Global Hawk can effectively operate within visual line of sight of the operator for short missions and beyond visual line of sight for long range, long endurance reconnaissance missions anywhere in the world. BLOS operations are critical because it allows the operator to provide intelligence to soldiers on the ground in near real time. BLOS operations require Ku SATCOM communications with satellites in space while LOS operations simply require the Global Hawk to operate within predefined range for the duration of the flight to maintain line of sight connectivity (Northrop Grumman, 2012). The advantages to BLOS operations include long range flights across the world, long endurance flights that provide critical reconnaissance data to commanders, and rotation of operators to reduce fatigue. The disadvantage to BLOS operations is that collection of data may take long amounts of time due to long range flights. There could also be a delay on transmission of data when the Global Hawk is thousands of miles away from the GCS. BLOS operations would also require each component of the UAV to be working correctly in order for the operator to provide necessary reconnaissance data. During BLOS flight, if the operator needs to put the UAV into manual control mode, a delay on the input of the flight controls could be hazardous to the safety of the flight. Line of sight operations will have higher transmission speeds and in the event of an emergency, it is likely that the operator will be able to land the UAV safely at the home airbase. With LOS operations being much closer to the GCS, there are fewer chances that interference can occur to interrupt the signals between the GCS and the Global Hawk.

            The transition between LOS and BLOS can present several human factors issues. When BLOS operations have been initiated, SATCOM data links have been susceptible to latency issues. Latencies between the GCS and the Global Hawk can make remote piloting become a less feasible option. When remote piloting is no longer an option, autopilots must be turned on because of latencies experienced during BLOS operations (Valavanis, Oh, & Peigl, 2008). Since the Global Hawk is a long endurance UAV, the operator may need to fly the UAV across multiple ATC regions. One ATC procedure for UAS flight across multiple ATC regions is to use the UAV as a communication relay. The relay will allow a ground operator to stay in contact with ATC constantly within specific regions of airspace (Valavanis et al., 2008). If ATC contact with the operator is lost, the ground control station will attempt to re-establish the data link between the GCS and ATC. When the Global Hawk is flying BLOS, the only way to re-establish the data link between the GCS and ATC is by carrying multiple VHF transceivers and having redundant voice communication systems on board (Valavanis et al., 2008). There is a chance that the operator could completely lose contact with ATC, putting the Global Hawk and other aircraft at risk for a midair crash. Another issue when switching between LOS and BLOS could be situational awareness. The final human factor issue that could become a problem is the handoff of the Global Hawk from one GCS to another. If the UAV is handed off to another GCS, situational awareness levels for the receiving operator could be reduced due to flight mode inputs by the previous operator. Checklists for switching between operators should be followed to ensure there is a smooth transition from one GCS to another. The operator handing the UAV off should ensure that aircraft settings and configurations are set in a standard position to prevent the next operator from turning off any critical functions on the UAV.

            According to Northrop Grumman (2012), the Global Hawk is the only UAS to receive both military and NASA airworthiness certificates. In order to receive the airworthiness certificate, the Air Force put the Global Hawk through more than 600 airworthiness test criteria. Each component was tested to meet extreme specification requirements and the Air Force had to verify that each system was safety during all phases of flight (Northrop Grumman, 2012). When the RQ-4 Global Hawk received the airworthiness certificate, the Air Force stated that the Global Hawk would be able to fly safely within the National Airspace System (NAS). The first challenge that will be faced for BLOS operations within the NAS will be regulations that must be developed by the FAA. Amazon is only one business out of many that have plans to use UAVs to deliver packages to customers within a certain distance from shipping warehouses. If Amazon could perform BLOS operations, there would be less congestion on roads which would reduce carbon emissions from vehicles. BLOS operations would be greatly utilized by search and rescue teams, cargo transport services such as Amazon or UPS, crop dusting and agriculture operations, and even natural disaster teams conducting research on damages. These commercial operations are in the near future, especially considering the rapid growth of UAS in the United States and due to the FAA’s roadmap for integration of UAS into the NAS. However, until new regulations are developed and detect, sense and avoid technology is created, commercial operations will continue to be hindered within the United States.  

References

Duncan Aviation. (2012). Straight Talk About Satcom & HSD. Retrieved from             https://www.duncanaviation.aero/files/straight-talk/Straight_Talk-Satcom_HSD.pdf

Gibbs, Y. (2015, March 11). Global Hawk - Performance and Specifications. Retrieved from             https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/aircraft/GlobalHawk/performance.html

Northrop Grumman . (2012). Q-4 Enterprise [Brochure]. Author.

Pike , J. (n.d.). RQ-4A Global Hawk (Tier II HAE UAV). Retrieved from             https://fas.org/irp/program/collect/global_hawk.htm

Valavanis, K., Oh, P., & Piegl, L. (2008). Unmanned Aircraft Systems International Symposium on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Uav-08. Springer Verlag.

Activity 3.4 Research: UAS Integration in the NAS

UAS Integration in the NAS

            Radar systems have long been used in the United States to safety control the movements of aircraft within the National Airspace System (NAS). However, with air traffic increasing in the NAS, the FAA has deemed it necessary to continue development of the Next Generation Air Traffic System (NextGen). NextGen has been in the works for many years, but as time passes, the potential benefits of NextGen continue to push the FAA to finish this new system. NextGen is not a single system; it is made of a series of initiatives that will make the NAS more efficient and safe (Houston, 2016). NextGen was formed in 2000 and officially started in December of 2003. NextGen was designed to be a multi-agency, multi-year modernization of the current, outdated air traffic system (Houston, 2016). The NextGen air traffic system has many benefits. These benefits include better travel experiences, fuel savings for operators, a reduction in emissions due to more direct routes, reduced separation between aircraft due to more accurate systems, reduced congestion, better communications across the NAS, easy access to in flight weather information, and improvements for on board technology (Houston, 2016).

            Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) is a critical component of the NextGen system. ADS-B will affect all segments of aviation. ADS-B will allow pilots and air traffic control to review real time information regarding the airspeeds, headings, altitudes, and other information of various aircraft equipped with ADS-B. With ADS-B, pilots and air traffic control will receive continuous updates from air traffic, allowing pilots and ATC to have unprecedented amounts of situational awareness (NextGen, 2016). With real time updates on other aircraft, both commercial aviation and general aviation will become safer. ADS-B for general aviation will provide pilots with traffic updates, in flight weather information, and access to flight information services. The national airspace system (NAS) is experiencing growth at a rapid rate; ADS-B will increase safety and airspace efficiency for aircraft flying within the national airspace system and for aircraft flying into controlled airspaces. ADS-B will improve safety on the ground and in the air. This technology will also reduce costs for operators due to more direct routing and will also reduce harmful effects on the environment (NextGen, 2016).

            UAS integration into the NAS is already beginning. UAS have become a large part of military and government operations, ranging from the Department of Defense and Homeland Security to all branches of the military for surveillance and bombing missions. UAS are also becoming popular for non-military operations. These operations include border patrol, search and rescue operations, flooding impact studies, and even for erosion and crop damage control (Paczan et al., 2012). Currently, UAS are not to be flown for commercial operations, but UAS operators can operate under a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization. In 2011 Customs and Border Protection utilized the surveillance abilities of the MQ-9 Predator-B to seize more than 7,600 pounds of illegal narcotics (Paczan et al., 2012).

            UAS within the NAS will require special considerations based on data communications and enhanced automation systems. With the NextGen system, there will be enhancements to the two way data communication links shared between aircraft and ATC. Data communications have been designed to provide pilots and ATC with routine and strategic information that will impact the various phases of flight (Paczan, Cooper, & Zakrzewski, 2012). Benefits to data communications include greater amounts of information displayed for pilots in the cockpit, new sophisticated automation tools, smarter, more efficient coordination between ATC and pilots, and less congestion on ATC frequencies (Paczan et al., 2012). Automation systems will streamline operations between ATC and pilots. Automation systems will be critical to the safety of UAS within the NAS because controller workload will increase as the ratio of UAS to manned aircraft increases (Paczan et al., 2012).

            UAS integration into the NAS will face several challenges. Detect, sense, and avoid technology is still rather new, but with ADS-B becoming a requirement for manned aircraft by 2020, ADS-B has been identified as a solution for UAS within the NAS. The limitation for ADS-B usage is that any non-participating aircraft flying within the NAS will not be seen by other aircraft equipped with ADS-B. If UAS are required to have ADS-B, other operators and ATC will have more control over the safety of the NAS. Another challenge for integration of UAS into the NAS will be based around flight plans. Flight plans are an integral component of air traffic operations within the NAS (Paczan et al., 2012). Flight plans allow controllers to safely and effectively manage the various classes of airspace within the NAS. When UAS are being integrated into the NAS, specific contingency routes must be considered before flight. In the event of an emergency, where should a UAV operator fly the unmanned aircraft? Contingency routes are normally pre-programmed into the flight computers on the aircraft, but with unmanned aircraft, there could be hundreds of specific contingency routes. Paczan et al., (2012) suggest having a storage mechanism in place to maintain all contingency routes for a UAV. These routes would have to carry specific activation conditions in the event of an emergency.

            There are other human factors considerations that must be researched before UAS can be integrated into the NAS. This author believes complacency and lack of awareness will be human factors that may play a role in future UAS accidents. Complacency occurs when routine activities become habitual; tasks that are repeated on a daily basis become “easy” and therefore the operator will use muscle memory to fly the UAV. Simple flight routes that are flown repeatedly will cause the operator to become relaxed rather than being alert (The Human Factors, n.d.). Complacency can also occur after a near miss or recovery from a potential disaster. The relief that will be felt by an operator after a potential accident can result in a state of relaxation and reduced situational awareness (The Human Factors, n.d.). In addition to potential accidents, too little pressure can also cause complacency. Too much stress causes fatigue, but too little stress causes complacency. Therefore, some stress can actually be beneficial to the operations of UAV operators.

            Lack of awareness is also a potential hazard to UAV integration into the NAS. “Working in isolation and only considering one’s own responsibilities can lead to tunnel vision; a partial view, and a lack of awareness of the affect our actions can have on other and the wider task” (The Human Factor, n.d., para. 29). Lack of awareness can lead to unnecessary stressors, an increase in the levels of fatigue, and loss of situational awareness, increasing the chances for an accident. While ADS-B will increase awareness for manned aircraft, unless UAVs within the NAS are required to have ADS-B, UAV operators will not be as aware as they should be. ADS-B will also only allow operators to sense other aircraft with ADS-B technology. Unless there is a mandate to have ADS-B on UAVs, non-participating aircraft will be a threat to other manned and unmanned aircraft in the NAS.

            In conclusion, UAVs and NextGen technologies can be integrated to create a more safe and efficient airspace system for UAV usage. UAV operations will continue to grow in the United States, and with this in mind, the FAA must continue to consider how to safely integrate UAVs into the NAS. With ADS-B technology, UAVs should be able to operate within a section of airspace dedicated to for UAVs. However, even with NextGen technology, the FAA must consider what regulations should be developed in order to ensure UAVs have detect, sense, and avoid technology, particularly for commercial operations.

References

Houston, S. (2016, August 14). NextGen in a Nutshell: The Next Generation Air Traffic System. Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/nextgen-in-a-nutshell-282561

N. M. Paczan, J. Cooper and E. Zakrzewski, "Integrating unmanned aircraft into NextGen            automation systems," 2012 IEEE/AIAA 31st Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), 

Williamsburg, VA, 2012, pp. 8C3-1-8C3-9. doi: 10.1109/DASC.2012.6382440

Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). (2016, October 26). Retrieved from             https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/adsb/

The Human Factors "Dirty Dozen". (n.d.). Retrieved from             http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/The_Human_Factors_%22Dirty_Dozen%22