ASCI 638: 2.4 Research- UAS GCS Human Factors Issue

In this research activity, you will select a UAS GCS of your choice and provide an in depth analysis of its functional operation. Next, identify at least two negative human factors issues associated with its design, and identify solutions to mitigate the risks posed by their existence. Are there any common human factors in your UAS that are also present in manned aircraft?

UAS GCS Human Factors Issue

            The RQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is a long endurance, medium altitude UAV designed for surveillance and reconnaissance missions (Predator RQ-1, n.d.). The predator is equipped with video cameras that utilize synthetic aperture radar to create surveillance imagery that can be distributed in real time to soldiers on the ground, the operational commander, and via satellite communication links (Predator RQ-1, n.d.). All the system controls and UAV abilities are controlled through the use of a ground control station (GCS) which houses the pilot and payload operator and the all computer systems and other critical data gathering systems that allow soldiers to gather detailed surveillance information during flight.

            The ground control station for the Predator UAV is housed within a single 30 foot trailer that contains seating for the pilot and payload operator, the consoles for the pilot and payload operator, three Boeing Data Exploitation and Mission Planning Consoles, and two synthetic aperture radar workstations (RQ-1A/MQ-1 Predator, n.d.). The trailer also contains communications equipment such as satellite and line of sight ground data terminals that relay information back to the operators and soldiers (RQ-1A/MQ-1 Predator UAV, n.d.). The ground control station for the Predator UAV can send surveillance imagery to the operators or to a system called the Trojan Spirit data distribution system. The Predator uses C- and Ku Band datalinks. These datalinks are used for line of sight (LOS) and non-LOS communications with the UAV. Using these datalink systems, the UAV can operate at ranges of about 400 nautical miles (General Atomics RQ-MQ-1, n.d.). The Trojan Spirit System used these datalink systems for data dissemination (RQ-1A/MQ-1 Predator, n.d.).

            The GCS within the 30x8x8 trailer is equipped with an integral uninterrupted power supply and environmental control system. The ground control stations allows the pilot and payload operator to conduct data exploitation, create and conduct mission plans, communicate through DEMPC terminals, and contains synthetic aperture radar workstations (Pike, n.d.). Synthetic aperture radar is a critical component of the predator UAV. This radar system allows the operator to map the Earth around the UAV, monitor the environment, and capture complex information that is used to create high resolution imagery (What is SAR, n.d.). The synthetic aperture radar system within the GCS allows the operator to collect imagery at any time of the day or during any kind of sight blocking atmospheric conditions (What is SAR, n.d.). All images collected during the flight of the Predator are sent to the GCS because the Predator does not have an onboard recording system capability (Pike, n.d.). All power supplied to the ground control station is supplied through dual external generators (Pike, n.d.).

            There are several issues that have been identified with the Predator UAV GCS. First, “Rainman,” a major in the USAF who was the first pilot to fly the Predator in 1995 and spent many hours flying the UAV, discovered one major human factor issue with the GCS. According to Rainman, the RQ-1 Predator UAV GCS operator keyboard had keys that turned the lights on and off and the keys to the engine adjacent to each other.  During high workload situations, an operator could easily mistake the keys to the engine for the keys to the light controls. This could easily lead to the destruction of the aircraft during flight (Conner, Cooke, Pedersen, & Pringle, 2006). Another human factors issue Rainman brought to light was the lack of haptic cues and feedback found in manned aircraft. Where a manned aircraft pilot can feel engine failure or on coming stalls, a Predator operator cannot feel these. Rainman highly suggested that the operator be able to see oncoming failures by accessing menus on the interface within the GCS (Conner et al., 2006).

            The simple solution to both of these problems is to redesign the GCS operator control center. Human factors issues dealing with ergonomics can be solved by simply moving the problem area or redesigning the keys into a different shape. For example, in a Cessna 172, the throttle control and the mixture control are different shapes and feel different when a hand is placed on them. This simple design can prevent a pilot from unintentionally pulling the mixture all the way out when the true intention was to pull the power out. The keys for the lights and the engine should be moved away from each other. If the engine keys are placed on the opposite side of the keyboard or even away from the keyboard completely, the operator should not have to worry about accidently killing the power to the UAV. As for the issue with the operator not being able to feel the sensations that a manned aircraft pilot feels, haptic feedback should be installed so the operator can feel when a stall is beginning to occur. It may also be beneficial for the seats within the GCS to vibrate or rotate and bank based on the flight control inputs made by the operator (Conner et al., 2006).

            Human factors exist in both manned and unmanned aircraft operations. Between both unmanned and manned operations, there are common human factors that exist in relation to each other. Technical flight training exists not only to teach pilots and operators about how to fly an aircraft; it is also about training pilots and operators how to react during emergencies. Training also teaches pilots and operators how to prevent human factors issues from causing an accident. The underlying issue is that during flight operations where workloads are high, it is easy to forget crucial steps that should be taken to ensure the safety of the flight operations.  For example, like manned aircraft pilots, error management in UAV GCS is necessary. Error can be managed through the following ways: avoidance, trapping, and mitigating. The process of avoidance allows the operators to recognize traits that lead to weakness which could lead to potential errors during flight operations. Trapping is the process of identifying an error and minimizing the activity affect by an error (Campbell & Bagshaw, 2002). Finally mitigation is the process of determining the consequences of an error and how they can be reduced by taking specific actions that prevent the development of an error (Campbell & Bagshaw, 2002).

            Similarly to manned aircraft operations, flight crews must utilize several critical steps to ensure human factors errors are reduced. Briefing the flight crew (or operators) before the flight allows each member to identify potential errors. Breaking the error in the chain of events can potentially save an aircraft or lives. Preparation allows the flight crew to prepare for the unexpected. Cambell & Bagshaw (2002) describe this step as staying ahead of the aircraft. By staying one step ahead of the aircraft, fast reactions to hazards can be prevented and more time can be taken to properly analyze a situation. The last step is to perform workload management. By establishing responsibilities, each member of the flight crew can avoid overload (Campbell & Bagshaw, 2002). If the following steps are followed and the operators take time to review the objectives and responsibilities of each crew member, human factors can be reduced and safety levels can be increased.

References

Campbell, R. D., & Bagshaw, M. (2002). Human performance and limitations in aviation (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Connor, O., Cooke, N.J., Pedersen, H., & Pringle, H. (2006). Human factors of remotely   operated vehicles. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Publications.

General Atomics RQ/MQ-1 Predator. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.designation-       systems.net/dusrm/app2/q-1.html

Pike, J. (n.d.). UAV Ground Control Station (GCS). Retrieved from             http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/uav_gcs.htm

Predator RQ-1 / MQ-1 / MQ-9 Reaper UAV. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator-uav/

RQ-1A/MQ-1 Predator UAV. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://defense-          update.com/products/p/predator.htm

What is Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)? (n.d.). Retrieved from    http://www.sandia.gov/radar/what_is_sar/

9.4 Blog: Case Analysis Effectiveness

9.4 – Blog Case Analysis Effectiveness

For your case analysis project you worked collaboratively to research, develop, and present a topic associated with major theme of problems or issues associated with UAS design, operations, or regulations. Discuss the effectiveness of the Case Analysis tool in this course. Focus specifically on the utility of Case Analysis as a tool for decision making and how it has (or does not have) utility in your current line of work, future anticipated career, or past experiences (identify at least two examples). Provide any recommendations for how the process or project (e.g., requirements, format, group interaction, topical focus, etc.) could be improved to better support building and expanding student experience for the eventual or further development of their careers.

            The case analysis designed for this course is an excellent tool to develop a decision making process. This author has never had to complete a case analysis, but after completing the case analysis paper, this author believe his writing skills and critical thinking skills have increased thanks to the layout of the paper. The case analysis paper was broken down into 5 parts; the summary, the issue or problem statement, the significance of the problem, the development of two alternative actions with pros and cons for each alternative, and a unique recommendation to solve the problem. Unlike a standard research paper where the writer simply completes research and writes on the problem, a case analysis requires that the writer spend time thinking about the topic in order to develop well thought out solutions to the problem. A case analysis assists the student by allowing the students to focus on a real issue within the aviation industry while also coming up with unique ways to solve the problem. The real benefit for this author was the development of a unique recommendation to solve the problem. This author chose to write on the lack of detect, sense, and avoid technology to allow full integration of unmanned aerial systems within the National Airspace System. The recommendation section of the case analysis really allowed this author to get creative with a recommendation based on radar systems for UAS. With this recommendation, this author was able to describe the radar system that would solve the issue of UAS not being able to detect, sense, and avoid other aircraft or hazards such as birds or power lines.

            A case analysis allows the student to look at a problem from a different perspective. In the workplace, a worker will not always simply have all the right ideas. There will also be times in which it is important to come up with unique ideas to solve a problem. A case analysis introduces students to these different perspectives. The case analysis paper certainly allowed this author to expand his ideas on the issue of the lack of detects, sense, and avoid technology within UAS computer systems. This author is currently a full time student, so a case analysis has no utility in any job at this point in time. However, this author is an aspiring professional pilot, and the case analysis tool will allow this author to look at a problem and determine alternative actions to solve a problem. During the flight planning process, alternative airports should be chosen in the event of an emergency. Alternative actions must be taken during an emergency during flight. By choosing alternative airports, this author would need to look at the pros and cons of alternative airports. Factors to look at include fuel available, runway lengths, and distances from various positions along the route.

            The overall process of the development of the case analysis for this class is laid out in an orderly fashion. One of the steps in the development of this case analysis project that this author enjoyed completing was the peer reviews for the abstract and rough draft. The first recommendation this author would make to improve the development of the case analysis would be a final peer review of the case analysis during the week it is due. This author greatly appreciated the constructive feedback developed by several classmates. This author took the recommendations into consideration and made changes where applicable. A final peer review of the paper before it is turned in would allow students to gain more confidence after a peer within the same graduate course has reviewed it and made recommendations where necessary. The second recommendation this author would make would be to lower the page requirement for the case analysis. After turning the rough draft in, this author found that he struggled to convey the main points of the paper because of the requirements of meeting the 5 learning outcomes that had to be discussed and having 20 pages of content. This author felt that the message within the case analysis could be well developed in less than 20 pages. In order to reach the 20 page requirement, this author added in more information than what was necessary which made the rough draft confusing and hard to follow. Thanks to the recommendations of the professor and other peers, this author cleaned up the rough draft and was able to convey all the issues, alternative actions, and recommendations for the lack of detect, sense, and avoid technology to facilitate full UAS integration into the NAS. This author greatly appreciates the required development of the case analysis throughout the paper. Unlike many classes where a paper is assigned and has a set date, this course kept this author aware of the project by requiring that work be completed on the paper each week. This fact made the author feel much better about the development of the paper because without weekly work being due for the case analysis, this author would have likely attempted to complete the paper within a few weeks instead of utilizing the entire semester. This author would greatly recommend other courses follow the same format. Weekly completion of parts of the case analysis would keep students on their feet and prevent procrastination. This author also believes that students would walk away from the course better prepared for future courses in the Master’s Degree program.

            This author would like to thank his peers for the excellent recommendations given on the peer review assignments and also for the recommendations and guidance provided by Professor Brazelton during the development of the case analysis.

7.4 Research Paper: Request for Proposal

In this activity, you will develop a response to the following:

Natural disasters such as tornados, hurricanes, and wildfires have a devastating impact on communities where these events occur. Lives are lost, citizens are injured, and infrastructure and property are destroyed. In the aftermath resources are limited, while the response and recovery is hampered by reduced communications and infrastructure damage. Based on this scenario use these high-level base requirements to propose a series of derived/low-level requirements for the design of a UAS down to the element level (e.g., air vehicle element, command & control [C2], payload, data-link [communications], and support equipment) to support response and recovery efforts.

Ensure you include applicable test requirements to verify the system will work as proposed and an associated schedule to perform the required phases of development (e.g., system development, ground testing, and in-flight testing). In addition, develop an overview to identify associated design considerations and decisions for your derived requirements. You are encouraged to locate and examine commercially-off-the-shelf (COTS) components to determine capability associated with the UAS elements for the derived requirements and testing strategy.

Request for Proposal

            Natural disasters have a massive impact on the areas in which the disaster occurs. During natural disasters, lives are lost, people are hurt, and homes, buildings, and infrastructure are damaged or destroyed. In the aftermath of these disasters, response and recovery can be slowed by the limited number of resources available to aid those in need. This request for proposal shall review the major base requirements of transportability, air vehicle elements, and payload for a UAV that is designed for search and rescue operations. During natural disasters, people can easily get lost in all the chaos; in the aftermath, search and rescue teams will come to the aid of these people. By allowing search and rescue teams to utilize unmanned aircraft, search and rescue efforts will become more efficient and areas that cannot be easily reached by ground search and rescue teams can be further explored for missing people. The UAV being developed for this proposal will allow search and rescue personnel to deliver lifesaving materials to the lost people if needed. The UAV will be a quadrotor design that will allow the UAV to takeoff and landing vertically. This function will also allow the operator to thoroughly search an area hit by a natural disaster. The time frame for this UAV will be 2 years in development.

Transportability:

1.1  The entire system (including all elements of the UAV) shall be transportable in a hard, protective case that will weigh less than 50 lbs enabling one person to carry the UAV.

1.2  The hardened case shall have various compartments dedicated for all components for the UAV.

1.3  The hardened case shall be one single case which will enable the entire UAV/control system to be carried at once.

1.4  The hardened case shall be designed to be picked up and carried by a single person or rolled on the ground via a handle with wheels on the case.

1.5  The hardened case shall be designed to withstand a fall from a height of 5 feet with minimal damage to the case.

1.6  The hardened case shall be designed to protect the UAV by absorbing the shock from a fall of 5 feet.

Air Vehicle Elements

1.1  Shall be capable of flight up to 500 feet in altitude above ground level.

1.1.1        The UAV shall climb at a rate of 2 meters per second.

1.1.2        The UAV shall be capable of descending at a rate of 1.5 meters per second.

1.1.3        The UAV shall be capable of operating in temperatures ranging from 0° to 40° C

1.1.4        The UAV shall be capable of flight in sustained winds up to 25 mph.

1.1.5        The UAV shall utilize satellite GPS for precise movements. 

1.2  Shall be capable of sustained flight (at loiter speed) in excess of one hour.

1.2.1        Battery life for the UAV shall exceed two hours of flight time due to a hydrogen fuel cell.

1.2.2        After sustained flight at loiter speeds, the UAV shall return to the operator.

1.3  Shall be capable of covering an operational radius of one mile.

1.3.1        The UAV shall have the ability to operate at distances up to 3 miles.

1.3.2        The UAV shall calculate the distance and fuel required to return to the operator.

1.4  Shall be deployable and on station (i.e., in air over mission area) in less than 15 minutes.

1.4.1    The UAV shall have each component that can easily snap into place.

1.4.2    UAV components shall easily be taken out of the hardened case due to ergonomic fittings for the components.

1.4.3    Shall have a maximum cruising speed of 44 mph depending on wind conditions.

1.5  Shall be capable of manual and autonomous operation.

1.5.1        The operator shall control the UAV when necessary.

1.5.2        The operator shall use the autonomous functions when necessary.

1.5.3        Autonomous operation shall be programed into the control station when manual operations are not being utilized.

1.5.4        Specific flight patterns shall be integrated into the systems on the UAV for thorough coverage of an area.

1.6  Shall provide capture of telemetry, including altitude, magnetic heading, latitude/longitude

position, and orientation (i.e., pitch, roll, and yaw).

1.6.1        UAV data shall be sent back to the operator for review of the flight.

1.6.2        UAV shall utilize GPS to transmit information about the flight back to the operator.

1.7  Shall provide power to payload, telemetry sensors, and data- link

1.7.1        The UAV shall utilize the electrical systems on board to power the payload, telemetry, and data link sensors.

1.7.2        The UAV shall have built in redundancies in the event that a function on the UAV ceases to operate properly.

1.8  Shall provide capability to orbit (i.e., fly in circular pattern around) or hover over an object of interest.

1.8.1        The UAV shall utilize GPS to hold a specific position based on latitude/longitude coordinates.

1.8.2        The UAV shall be capable of holding any altitude up to 500 feet set by the operator.

1.8.3        The UAV shall utilize GPS to fly specific search grids that will allow the operator to search an area carefully.

1.8.4        The operator shall have the ability to choose where to have the UAV orbit based on a specific position in the air.

Support Equipment:

1.1  Design shall identify any support equipment required to support operation

1.1.1    To support the operation, SAR personnel shall require rope to attach to the UAV in the event that a person is found and in need of medicine, water, or food.

1.1.2    SAR personnel shall require a lightweight basket to carry important supplies if a person is found and ground teams cannot reach the person immediately.

1.1.3    SAR personnel shall require a thermal imaging camera for operations at night.

1.1.4    SAR personnel shall require multiple hydrogen fuel cells for the safe operation of the UAV on long flights.

Testing Requirements:

            Tests will be completed to determine if the functions described above are testable or verifiable. Commercial off the shelf (COTS) components shall be used in the development of this UAV. In order to reduce potential development costs, simulation software will be used to test the abilities of the UAV first. After simulation data indicates the UAV will operate based on the design requirements, the UAV will be tested in person. Each requirement will be rigorously tested to determine if the UAV will be able to aid search and rescue personnel during SAR operations.

1. Transportability Testing

1.1  Storage of UAV components.

1.1.1        The UAV components will be placed into the hardened case cut outs to determine if the UAV will fit snugly into the case.

1.1.2        The case will be closed to determine if the case will close properly without damaging any of the components of the UAV.

1.1.3        The ground control unit will also be placed into the hardened case to determine if spacing is an issue.

1.2   Durability of hardened case.

1.2.1        The hardened case will be dropped from heights varying from 1 foot to 5 feet.

1.2.2        Once the case has been dropped from these heights, the case will be opened to determine if the components of the UAV have not been damaged.

1.2.3        The outside of the case will be looked at carefully to determine how much damage has occurred at each height.

1.2.4        All the components of the UAV will be placed inside the case to determine if the case is less than 50 pounds.

1.2.5        Determine if the case can easily be carried based on its shape and determine if the wheels on the case roll smoothly when applicable.

Air Vehicle Element

2.1 Flight Characteristics

2.1.1    The UAV shall be flown at varying altitudes up to 500 feet to ensure the UAV is                          airworthy.

2.1.2    The UAV will be flown at the minimum and maximum operating temperatures to ensure the UAV will not fail at temperatures near these extremes.

2.1.3    The max cruising, ascent, and descent speeds will be tested in normal flight conditions. The UAV will also be tested on days that are windy. The maximum operation in wind speeds of 25 mph shall be tested.

2.1.4    The hydrogen power cell will be tested to ensure the UAV can fly for one hour loitering and up to one more hour of standard flight.

2.1.5    The UAV will be flown out to 3 miles to determine if the UAV will warn the operator of the maximum distance being achieved.

2.1.6    The communications between the UAV and the ground control unit will be tested during the long range flight.

2.1.7    Multiple tests will be ran to determine that the UAV can be deployed and in the air within 15 minutes. If the UAV cannot be assembled in less than 15 minutes, a different design based on a collapsible UAV will need to be researched.

2.1.8    The UAV operator shall test the manual operation capabilities of the UAV. The operator will also put the UAV into an autonomous flight mode to test the flight grip capabilities of the UAV. The proper pitch, roll, and yaw controls will be tested during this time.

2.1.9    Determine if the UAV can send flight data, images, and video back to the operator.

2.1.10 The UAV will be placed into an orbit around a specific point. At this time, the UAV will be tested to determine if the UAV can hold a position based on latitude and longitude. The ability of the UAV to hold altitude will be tested, and flight grid patterns will also be tested again during this time.

2.1.11 The hydrogen fuel cells will be checked carefully for proper operation.

3. Support Equipment

3.1 Required Support Equipment

3.1.1    For intended search and rescue operations, a rope shall be attached to the UAV. At this time, the payload characteristics will be determined. The UAV will be designed to carry small payloads in the event that a missing person is found but ground search and rescue personnel cannot reach the person.

3.1.2    A lightweight metal basket will be attached to the UAV. The UAV will be flown at varying speeds and altitudes to ensure the UAV can carry the required payloads.

3.1.3    Materials such as food, water, medicine, clothes, or even lifejackets will be placed inside the basket of the UAV. The UAV will be flown at various speeds and altitudes to ensure the UAV can fly with light payloads.

3.1.4    The camera on the UAV will be tested to ensure clear videos and pictures can be taken during flight and at loiter speeds.

3.1.5    The thermal imaging camera shall be tested at night to ensure proper operation.

The Development Process

            The 10-Phase Waterfall Method will be utilized as a starting point for the development of this UAV. This development process would be the most efficient process because during phases 5, 6, and 7, the testing of the UAV could be completed as these phases concern testing and development of the UAV. This would allow a smooth transition to the last phases of the waterfall method which are certification, production, and support.

            To ensure an acceptable level of safety in the operation of any airborne system, including UAV systems, the airworthiness of the system and its safe usage of the airspace     in which it operates must be addressed at an early stage in the design, and pursued in the    development and operational trial phases (Austin, 2010, pg. 223). 

By using the waterfall method, the UAV should be completed in a reasonable amount of time (1 year) and ready for use in search and rescue operations. The specimen test, prototype build and test, and the development of the UAV (modifications) will take the longest amount of time to complete as the developer wants to ensure that each function of the UAV is testable and verifiable. Phases 1-4 will be completed in 4 months, phases 5-8 will be completed in 5 months, and phases 8-10 will be completed in 3 months.

            The UAV being created for search and rescue missions has been designed to carry light payloads of water, food, clothes, or medical supplies in the event that ground SAR personnel cannot reach a person directly affected by a natural disaster. The UAV has also been designed for search and rescue missions when a person is lost or missing. The standard camera will be utilized during the day for SAR operations and the optional thermal camera can be used at night during missions. The UAV being designed must be created to carry small payloads for SAR missions. This is why basic derived requirements for support equipment must be tested. If the UAV cannot carry small payloads, SAR personnel will not get full usage out of the UAV. A hydrogen fuel cell has been selected for use instead of batteries of gas because of the flight times that are achievable. A hydrogen fuel cell may be more efficient than gas or batteries, and it could be lighter than having to carry gas. Unlike a battery that has a short flight time, the hydrogen fuel cell intended for use of this UAV should allow the UAV to remain in the air for 2 hours. This would prevent the operator from having to fly the UAV back for gas or a battery replacement. The requirements for this UAV will ensure that the UAV is more than capable for usage during search and rescue operations for missing people or for delivering small loads of supplies to a person who cannot immediately be reached by ground personnel. The GPS grid patterns will allow the operator to manually or autonomously follow sweeping patterns that will allow the operator to thoroughly search and area. The UAV will also be developed to warn the operator of altitude limitations, distance limitations, and when the hydrogen fuel cell is running low. The computer systems within the UAV should allow the UAV to return to the operator autonomously based on latitude and longitude. All the design considerations, testing, modifications, certification, and production of the UAV shall be completed in a steady manner to ensure that each step is completed correctly.

References

Austin, R. (2010). Unmanned aircraft systems: UAVS design, development, and deployment.    Chichester, U.K: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

UAS Mission

What are the design and implementation of a specific UAS mission (military, or civil)? Determine a specific subject mission, consider public use or emergency services as law enforcement, medical, rescue or fire related mission sets. In your response:

• Identify and discuss the particular mission you are highlighting for a UAS
• Select three platforms capable of performing the mission and obtain an appropriate reference citation for each
• Discuss any considerations relative to the mission and if they correlate to the performance of any related mission execution tasks
• Identify the benefits and challenges associated with performing the particular UAS mission you are highlighting
• Identify and discuss at least two legal and or ethical challenges to the specific mission you are highlighting

UAS Mission

            Unmanned aerial systems (UAS) have continuously proven that there are many missions that can be completed in a more efficient manner than manned aircraft or by man on the ground. With the number of UAS increasing within the United States, it is inevitable that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will become part of the National Airspace System (NAS) for commercial usage. One important field that is utilizing UAVs is search and rescue operations. Search and rescue missions can be dangerous for people moving through varying terrains. There will also be instances in which search and rescue personnel cannot move through an area due to obstacles blocking the path. Manned aircraft have been utilized for years during search and rescue missions, but these operations can be incredibly expensive and time consuming. Due to the size of manned aircraft, if multiple aircraft are utilized, there must be distance between the aircraft. However, with the small size of UAVs, many aircraft can be flown in an area searching for a lost person. UAVs are expendable, cost less to operate than manned aircraft, do not put pilots at risk, and can cover large areas in short amounts of time.

            UAVs cost significantly less than traditional fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. Small UAVs are much more maneuverable and the video and images taken from the camera can be sent to an analytical team for review. Small UAVs that are being utilized for search and rescue operations have fewer operational risks and do not directly put the pilot in danger during flight. UAVs can survey large amounts of land in short periods of time and software has been developed that allows the operator to track the flight paths already taken by the UAV. This will prevent the operator from flying the same paths that have already been searched. In addition to this software, the UAV normally has enough flight time to scan large areas, especially if the operator flies the UAV in a sweeping pattern. While ground crews can also be used during search and rescue operations, a UAV can complete SAR operations quickly whereas ground crews could take hours to find a missing person. 

            Many UAVs can be utilized for search and rescue operations. For the purposes of this research paper, the three UAVs that will be discussed are the DJI Phantom, the Delta FW70 Fixed Wing UAV, and the Titan X8 heavy lift UAV. The DJI Phantom has become a very popular UAV for hobbyists. Due to the battery life, the stability of the UAV, and the clear resolution of the camera, the Phantom has many uses beyond aerial photography. As of November 3, 2016, DJI and DroneSAR have come together to develop a search and rescue application for first responders to utilized during operations. The search and rescue application can stream live videos and images from a standard or thermal camera to the incident command center (DJI and DroneSAR, 2016). The software for the application has the ability to tag specific areas of interest or the coordinates of a lost person which will allow SAR personnel to locate the missing person. The application also allows the operator to see the flight path of the UAV so that all patterns are recorded and logged and areas will not be missed (DJI and DroneSAR, 2016). The Phantom 3 has a max flight speed of 35 mph, utilizes GPS during flight, can ascend at 11 mph, can descend at 7 mph, and has a max service ceiling of 19685 feet above sea level (Phantom 3 Standard, n.d.).

            Another UAV that can be utilized for search and rescue operations is the Delta-FW70. This UAV is 70 inches and has a delta wing configuration made from dense foam. This UAV is durable and lightweight which means there will be longer flight times, shorter landing distances, gentle touch downs, and easier maneuvers (UAV Delta-FW70, n.d.). The FW70 can carry up to five pounds and the long wingspan makes flying in gusty conditions much easier when compared to other smaller UAVs. The FW70 was created to be an aerial remote sensing and mapping platform; there are 4 payload bays and this feature allows for an oversized camera that can take crystal clear pictures (UAV Delta FW70, n.d.). The Delta Wing FW70 is a great candidate for search and rescue operations. Unlike vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) UAVs, the FW70 can cover a range of 600 acres in an hour on a single battery. “It is fully capable of autonomous flight and includes a “Fly By Wire” mode, as well as software for GPS, autopilot, mission planning, and a telemetry system” (UAV Delta FW70, n.d., para. 6). With this technology, the FW70 can cover large areas while sending the images and videos back to a command center, allowing teams to analyze the information for missing persons.

            The final candidate for search and rescue operations is the xDrone Titan X8 Heavy Lift UAV. The Titan X8 is a heavy lift UAV capable of carrying up to 6.5 kg (14.33 pounds) and can fly at 14 m/s (31 mph) (xDrones Titan X8, n.d.).  The wonderful aspect of this UAV is that the Titan X8 can be used by search and rescue teams to carry lifesaving items such as life vests in the event that people are in danger outdoors. The payload levels also allow things such as food and water to be carried to people in need. The Titan X8 utilizes GPS for easier flight and has an advanced on board camera that can rotate 360 degrees for continuous views of the surroundings. This function would be great to have during a search and rescue operation due to the ability to completely search an area carefully. The Titan X8 can easily be broken down and stored into a transport box. The Titan X8 can travel up to 3300 feet without any delay between the UAV and the control station (xDrone Titan X8, n.d.).

            The big considerations for UAV usage during search and rescue operations will be the weather. Manned aircraft can fly in gusty conditions while small UAVs can easily be blown around by strong winds. Strong winds can make a search and rescue operation difficult because the camera feed may be difficult to view. With manned aircraft, gusty winds will make flight difficult, but manned aircraft can handle the gusts better than a small UAV. Another advantage that manned aircraft have over UAVs is the payload that can be carried on board. While the Titan X8 can carry a payload up to 14 pounds, a manned helicopter can carry more but could be in an area that prevents landings. However, UAVs have the advantage of being smaller which means landing sites will be easier to reach. The search and rescue teams could also deploy multiple UAVs to carry vital supplies to a person in danger. Multiple UAVs would also make the search for a missing person much easier. Overall, UAVs can prove to be marvelous tools for search and rescue operations due to their small size, ability to carry payloads, battery life, and the costs of UAV purchase compared to fuel for manned flight. While there are challenges that will be faced such as weather, communications problems, and the ability to carry small payloads, when multiple UAVs are operated during search and rescue operations, missing people could be found much faster than traditional manned flight.

            UAVs are not without their legal and ethical challenges. One potential legal and ethical issue with search and rescue personnel utilizing UAVs for SAR operations is the footage that is captured while searching for missing people. There could be legal repercussions for uploading UAV footage because it could potentially expose personal, sensitive, or graphic images (Hodapp, 2015). People are already worried about their privacy with manned aircraft in the air. With UAVs increasing in drastically, more people are likely to worry about the levels of privacy when UAV footage is easily obtainable. Another legal issue that must be addressed in the near future is altitude restrictions for UAVs, particularly during search and rescue operations. Current regulations state that UAVs shall not exceed an altitude greater than 400 feet AGL. What will happen if SAR personnel need a UAV to operate at altitudes greater than 400 feet? Will the FAA write new rules that allow law enforcement and SAR personnel to exceed the 400 foot altitude restriction in the event of an emergency? There will also be issues that arise if the UAV must fly beyond the line of sight of the operator. Current regulations require that UAVs be operated within line of sight due to the lack of sense and avoid technology in the computer systems of the UAVs. If the operator or SAR personnel cannot reach a person in trouble, the UAV may need to be flown beyond the line of sight of the operator. If this occurs, does the operator need the permission of the FAA to fly higher than 400 feet and operate the UAV beyond the line of sight? These questions will need to be addressed in the future in order to get the full benefits from UAV usage for search and rescue operations.

References

DJI And DroneSAR Bring Search And Rescue App To First Responders. (2016, November 3).           Retrieved from http://www.dji.com/newsroom/news/dji-and-dronesar-bring-search-and-rescue-app-to-first-responders

Hodapp, P. (2015, December 15). Search and Rescue Teams Aim to Save Lives with Drones.             Retrieved from http://makezine.com/2015/12/15/search-and-rescue-teams-aim-to-save-lives-off-the-shelf-drones/

Phantom 3 Standard - Specs, FAQ, manual, video tutorials and DJI GO - DJI. (n.d.). Retrieved           from https://www.dji.com/phantom-3-standard/info

UAV Delta-FW70 Fixed-Wing UAV. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.hse-   uav.com/delta_fw70_fixed_wing_uav.htm

xDrones Titan X8 Heavy Lift (RTF). (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.dslrpros.com/dslrpros-titan-x8.html

UAS in the NAS

UAS in the NAS

Part 1

            Detect, sense, and avoid technology is still in early development for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The absence of detect, sense, and avoid in current UAVs will undoubtedly lead to accidents both on the ground and in the National Airspace System (NAS). Due to the absence of detect, sense, and avoid technology, other technologies must be utilized to separate manned and unmanned aircraft. Safety has always been a concern in the aviation industry, but many of the regulations have been written in blood. With UAVs becoming increasing popular in the civilian sector, hobbyists and businesses are utilizing UAVs in many different ways. With the number of UAVs increasing at a dramatic rate, new regulations will need to be developed to ensure the safety of the aviation industry.

            There are several options available that could be utilized to reduce the risks of UAVs interacting with manned aircraft. First and foremost, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) should continue to develop and establish operator certification requirements. It is critical that UAV operators know certification requirements and airspace rules concerning the usage of UAVs. The FAA should assess the capabilities of UAVs. There are many kinds of UAVs; altitudes, speeds, communication abilities, and flight times will vary greatly depending on the class of UAV. An assessment of the capabilities of UAVs while also utilizing ground crews and ATC could help the FAA narrow down new regulations. The next option is to spend time and money creating detect, sense, and avoid technology. With this technology, UAVs will be able to “see” obstructions and other aircraft. Finally, current technologies such as ADS-B and TCAS could be implemented into UAVs in order to separate manned and unmanned aircraft.

Part 2

            There are five group classifications for UAVs. Groups 1 and 2 are micro and mini UAVs. These UAVs are likely to be operated via visual flight rules (VFR). If micro and mini UAVs are being operated within a line of sight, there would not necessarily be a need for detect, sense, and avoid technology. However, due to limitations with human eyes, the brain can distort the exact position of the UAV when another aircraft is nearby. Spatial disorientation becomes an issue with the UAV operator when the UAV moves out to a distance beyond what the operator can see. When a UAV moves out of the line of sight of the flight crew, the responsibility of sensing and avoiding cannot be assumed by the flight crew (Prats. Delgado, Ramirez, Royo, & Pastor, 2012). With these issues in mind, other support systems will be required to ensure the safety of the flight (Prats, et al., 2012).

            In order to assure that separation of aircraft can be assured, there are several factors that must be considered; flight rules, airspace class, the flight phase, the performance of the navigation systems, and the air traffic control surveillance means (Prats, et al., 2012). Groups 3 through 5 include tactical, MALE (medium altitude long endurance), and HALE (high altitude long endurance) UAVs. These UAVs fly regional, continental, and intercontinental routes and can fly from the ground up to 60,000 ft. Groups 3, 4, and 5 operate in all classes of airspace within the NAS. While small UAVs generally do not have the power to handle the integration of detect, sense, and avoid technology, larger UAVs such as the ones within groups 3 through 5 should be able to handle the required technology to sense obstacles and other aircraft. Technology that could be implemented include ADS-B, ACAS (autonomous collision avoidance system) and on-board radar (Prats, et al., 2012). Until micro and mini UAVs can be equipped with detect, sense, and avoid technology (which will require a lot of power and will reduce flight times), these small UAVs are likely to be restricted to line of sight operations.

Part 3

            There are several systems currently being utilized by manned aircraft that could be implemented into unmanned aircraft. These systems include ADS-B, ACAS, cameras, and radar. Cameras have been utilized by manned aircraft for many years. Unmanned aircraft have also utilized cameras, especially during times of war. Cameras can allow operators to see everything in front of the UAV and with new cameras having the ability to zoom in close to the ground, cameras will continue to be used during flight operations. ADS-B gives pilots real time information on air traffic, weather, and flight information services (FAA, n.d.). Safety and efficiency will improve as ADS-B is implemented into more aircraft. If UAVs are equipped with ADS-B, it is possible that the technology can be adjusted to give the operator real time updates on air traffic, weather, and flight information. UAVs must be developed to handle this technology before it is implemented. ACAS was developed to reduce the risk of mid-air collisions (Airborne Collision Avoidance System, n.d.). ACAS should enhance the awareness of the operator in relation to other aircraft within the same airspace. In 2016, the U.S. Army completed a test on a new system called Ground Based Sense and Avoid. This radar system should allow UAVs to fly within the NAS while also meeting FAA regulations. This radar system would allow the operator to fly the UAV out of sight while monitoring other aircraft and potential hazards during flight (Iriarte, 2016).

References

Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS). (n.d.). Retrieved from             http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Airborne_Collision_Avoidance_System_(ACAS)

Federal Aviation Administration (n.d.). Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen).   Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/adsb/

Iriarte , M. (2016, May 16). U.S Army completes UAS radar-based sense & avoid system test.     Retrieved from http://mil-embedded.com/news/u-s-army-completes-uas-radar-based-          sense-avoid-system-test/

Prats, X., Delgado, L., Ramirez, J., Royo, P., & Pastor, E. (2012). Requirements, Issues, and        Challenges for Sense and Avoid in Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Journal Of Aircraft,        49(3), 677-687. doi:DOI: 10.2514/1.C031606

2.5 - Research: Weeding Out a Solution

In this activity you will address the following scenario:

A UAS is to be designed for precision crop-dusting. In the middle of the design process, the system is found to be overweight.

• Two subsystems – 1) Guidance, Navigation & Control [flying correctly] and 2) Payload delivery [spraying correctly] have attempted to save costs by purchasing off-the-shelf hardware, rather than a custom design, resulting in both going over their originally allotted weight budgets. Each team has suggested that the OTHER team reduce weight to compensate.
• The UAS will not be able to carry sufficient weight to spread the specified (Marketing has already talked this up to customers) amount of fertilizer over the specified area without cutting into the fuel margin. The safety engineers are uncomfortable with the idea of changing the fuel margin at all.

Write a response describing how you, as the Systems Engineer, would go about resolving this issue. Use your imagination, and try to capture what you would really do. Take into account and express in your writing the things you’ve learned so far in this module: What are your considerations? What are your priorities? What do you think about the future prospects for the “next generation, enhanced” version of the system as a result of your approach?

Weeding Out a Solution

Considerations

            As the systems engineer, I have been confronted with resolving the issue of determining how to reduce weight on an unmanned aerial system (UAS) designed for precision crop-dusting. Two teams, guidance, navigation & control, and payload delivery have both attempted to save costs by purchasing off the shelf hardware. Both teams have gone over the allotted weight budget and both teams have suggested the other team reduce weight. As the systems engineer, it is important to be unbiased and knowledgeable about each person’s individual job in order to avoid further conflicts during the design process of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).

            The customer must be a consideration and a priority. How will customers react to the delayed schedule of the UAV? With the UAV being overweight and the marketing team discussing the spread capabilities of the UAV to customers, it could be necessary to lower the price of the UAV due to the UAV being less capable than what the company has already stated to customers. The customers are expecting to be able to purchase the UAV by a specific date. It would not look good on the business if the delivery date of the UAV was changed. However, it may be necessary considering the UAV would be less capable than what the marketing team has stated.

            One of the first steps I would take would be to review the lifecycle process technical review of phases and control gates. This process is setup to stop designers and manufacturers from continuing the development of a UAV unless a review has been completed (Terwilliger, Burgess, & Hernandez, 2013). By utilizing a phase-gate approach to the development of this UAV, and completing a corresponding review of each step in development, it is likely that the issue of the UAV being overweight would not have occurred in the first place. I would want to determine what parts were causing the UAV to become overweight. Even though the project is already over its allotted budget, it may be beneficial to create custom designs for hardware in order to reduce the weight of the UAV. The off the shelf hardware may be a critical factor in the issue of the UAV being overweight. It would be necessary to determine if custom designs for hardware would reduce the weight of the UAV.

Priorities

            The main priority in this scenario is to determine how to reduce the weight of the UAV while also keeping the customers happy with the design since the marketing team has already discussed the capabilities of the UAV. Taking the fuel margins into consideration, and under the recommendation of the safety engineers, the fuel levels should not be adjusted. It could be hazardous for people on the ground if the UAV has a short flight life. It would also be appropriate to have the guidance, navigation, & control team work their way back through the design process to determine if there is a more efficient design that would reduce the weight of the UAV. There is a chance that the team could look for more guidance, navigation, and control components that are lightweight and efficient enough for the operation of the UAV. Since the team used off the shelf components, these components may have not been as lightweight as aerospace grade materials. As far as communication with the teams goes, it would be beneficial to determine whether the teams were using a requirements-based design process described by Howard Loewen (2013). UAV manufacturing processes can be incredibly complex and highly structured. “As the UAVs produced become more sophisticated ad-hoc design processes become insufficient. Presently, more UAV manufacturers than ever have come to realize structured design processes are essential if they intend to develop reliable products” (Loewen, 2013, pg. 1). A requirements-based design process is a thorough methodology that helps UAV manufacturers address concerns and issues during the designing process for UAVs.

            Since the marketing team has already been talking to customers about the spread of the fertilizer, it is important to consider how customers would react if the product did not spread fertilizer as well as the marketing team specified. The profits from the UAV could be incredibly limited if customers purchase the UAV and determine that it does not spread the fertilizer as efficiently as the marketing team specified. As the system engineer, I would recommend the payload delivery team go back to the early stages of the design process and determine if custom designed hardware would reduce the weight of the UAV. Keeping the customers happy is a critical component of the well-being of the business. If the customers believe the marketing team has lied, word will spread and fewer customers will come back to purchase the next generation of the UAV from the business. I would suggest that the payload team redesign the fertilizer delivery system. If the delivery system had a wider spread, the UAV would require fewer laps around a field while dispensing the fertilizer. With fewer laps over a field, flight times should be shorter and fuel should be conserved. With better fuel consumption, the safety engineers will be satisfied. If aerospace grade materials are used by the navigation, guidance, and control team, the weight of the UAV could be reduced.

Future prospects for the next generation of the system

            With the first generation being overweight, the second generation of the UAV cannot have the same design flaws. The teams must collaborate in a more efficient manner; using the requirements based design process should prevent problems from occurring like they have with the first generation. As the systems engineer, I will act as the “great decider” and ensure each design team is communicating with the other teams so the chance for miscommunication is limited. If each team communicates properly, every person will be able to weigh in on solutions to keep the UAV within design limitations. With the issue of the first generation being overweight, the designers of the next generation should increase the acceptable weight loads of the UAV. Custom designed hardware should be considered before using off the shelf hardware. Payload levels should be increased and the marketing team should collaborate with the design team to prevent any misleading information from being spread to potential customers. If the first generation cannot be redesigned to meet the needs of the customer, the price of the next generation could be adjusted as compensation for the first generation not being within specified design requirements. I would also suggest that the allotted budget for the UAV be increased if possible in order to compensate for the purchase of the required materials. 

References

Loewen , H. (2013). Requirements, based UAV design process explained. Retrieved from             https://www.micropilot.com/pdf/requirements-based-uav.pdf

Terwilliger, B., Burgess, S., Hernandez D. (2013). ASCI 530 unmanned systems: Global system   design concepts, requirements, and specifications overview [PowerPoint Slides]. 

1.5 Assignment Research: History of UAS

History of UAS

Introduction

            Unmanned aerial vehicles have been around for a number of years. UAVs have been a powerful tool in the military and the civilian sector. During World War I, UAVs were used to perform missions over the Western Front in 1917 and 1918 (Blom, 2010). The missions that were conducted using UAVs are similar to the missions seen in Iraq and Afghanistan in modern times. According to Blom (2010), UAVs in the past and present have been used to adjust indirect fires, gather information regarding enemy movement, perform battle damage assessment, and provide target acquisition. In 1955, the United States Army started performing reconnaissance missions with UAVs; the Radioplane RP-71 was one of the UAVs tested during this time. As technology has advanced, UAVs have become a big part of the military and are being used more in the civilian sector. UAVs have many different purposes within the world today. From reconnaissance and damage assessments in the military to photography and disaster assessments, UAVs will become a huge part of the aviation industry in the coming years. The RQ-7 Shadow 200 is a relatively new UAV being utilized by the military.

Radioplane RP-71 Falconer

            The Radioplane RP-71 Falconer had a wingspan of 12 feet and could ascend into the atmosphere at 3,000 feet per minute (Blom, 2010). The RP-71 could reach a top speed of 185 miles per hours and could fly at altitudes between a few hundred feet and up to 4 miles. The endurance of the RP-71 was 30 minutes according to Blom (2010).The RP-71 took several minutes to launch. A catapult launch system was used to send the RP-71 into the sky (Blom, 2010).  The RP-71 utilized a solid rocket booster from zero length launcher (Northrop Radioplane RP-71, n.d.). The RP-71 would be recovered by deploying a parachute. One benefit that the RP-71 had over traditional aircraft was that this UAV could be flown in weather that would be hazardous to other aircraft. The RP-71 had advanced technology during its conception. This UAV used cameras and had an optional TV (Northrop Radioplane RP-71, n.d.). The pictures taken by the RP-71 took some time to process, but an operator could have the pictures in under an hour (Blom, 2010). The RP-71 was also designated as MQM-57 and was a reconnaissance unmanned vehicle. An operator would fly the UAV via radio signals and was tracked by radar (USAF, 2015).

RQ-7 Shadow 200

            The RQ-7 Shadow 200 is a UAV that was developed to locate and identify targets on the battlefield. The Shadow can fly up to 15,000 feet and has a cruising speed of 127 knots (RQ-7 Shadow UAV). The Shadow is launched from a hydraulic rail launcher and has the ability to climb at a rate between 1,000 to 1,500 feet per minute (Shadow 200 RQ-7, n.d.). Compared to the RP-71, the RQ-7 can carry heavier payloads for longer periods of time. This UAV incorporates incredible electro optical and infrared sensors that give the operator the ability to capture video and pictures during the day and night (RQ-7 Shadow UAV). The RQ-7 is easily recoverable; it has a conventional landing gear and can land on a flat surface if there is a surface that is 95 meters in length. The RQ-7 Shadow is controlled through a sophisticated ground control system. The ground control station is suited with vehicle control settings and C4I interface software (Shadow 200 RQ-7, n.d.). The operating procedures for the RQ-7 had to be redesigned during US campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan due to the intense heat and massive amounts of sand building up on the UAV (RQ-7 Shadow UAV, n.d.).

Comparison between the RP-71 and the RQ-7 Shadow 200

            The Radioplane RP-71 Falconer and the RQ- Shadow 200 are similar in purpose. The RP-71 and the RQ-7 are launched with the aid of a catapult system, but the benefit of the RQ-7 is that it can be launched without the aid of a catapult system. Both of these unmanned aerial vehicles have been used for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Damage assessment is still completed by the RQ-7 Shadow. While the Shadow seems to have more uses overall, the RP-71 has the ability to fly at a faster rate (185 mph in the RP-71 compared to 127 in the RQ-7 Shadow) and the RP-71 can fly at higher altitudes than the RQ-7. However, the flight times are very different when comparing these two UAVs. The RP-71 could fly for 30 minutes while the RQ-7 could fly for 6 hours (RQ-7 Shadow UAV, n.d.). The RQ-7 has a technologically advanced sensor package compared to the RP-71’s radio transmission and radar contact tracking systems. Unlike the RP-71, the ground control station that is utilized by the operator of the RQ-7 provides the operator with real time footage that the cameras are picking up. The RP-71 had cameras and an optional TV, but it took some time to develop the pictures that the UAV took during flight. The advances in technology have now required operators to need more room to transport the UAVs to a specific location. The RP-71, the launcher, and the control system could be transported by two standard 6x6 trucks with trailers (Blom, 2010). A single RQ-7 can be transported by two military vehicles (Shadow 200 RQ-7, n.d.). The RP-71 had an identical wingspan of 12 feet (Blom, 2010). In comparison, the RQ-7 Shadow had a wingspan of just over 12 feet.

Conclusions

            With the advancements in technology and the creation of the RQ-7 Shadow, military operators using the Shadow are able to gather intel and perform reconnaissance missions more efficiently. There does seem to be one limitation with the RQ-7 Shadow; the top speed seems to be lacking. Compared to the RP-71, the RQ-7 is much slower (185 mph vs. 127 mph.). While speed is not necessarily always needed, it may be beneficial for the RQ-7 to fly at a faster rate. As new technology is created for UAVs such as the RQ-7, operators should determine if there are any flaws in the response times of the RQ-7 during flight. GPS has become the standard for operations around the world. GPS may not be a new technology, but any improvements on this system could potentially influence the system capabilities of the RQ-7. It is likely that military UAVs will continue to receive the latest and greatest in the area of optics for the cameras on board the RQ-7. An increase in the flight time of the RQ-7 could greatly influence the system capabilities of the RQ-7 and would be beneficial to long range reconnaissance missions.

References

Blom, J. D. (2010). Unmanned Aerial Systems: A Historical Perspective. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press.    

doi:http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/OP37.pdf

Northrop Radioplane RP-71 Falconer, SD-l. (n.d.). Retrieved from      http://www.wmof.com/rp71falconer.html

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

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

USAF. (2015). Radioplane/Northrop MQM-57 Falconer. Retrieved from             http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/MuseumExhibits/FactSheets/Display/tabid/509/            Article/195784/radioplanenorthrop-mqm-57-falconer.aspx