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/