Normalizing UAV Access to the National Airspace System - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Normalizing UAV Access to the National Airspace System PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 3f6046-MTJjN



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Normalizing UAV Access to the National Airspace System

Description:

Normalizing UAV Access to the National Airspace System Progress Report April 2002 OUTLINE OSD/FAA Program Relation to Access 5/UNITE Effort Facts Underlying ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:21
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 32
Provided by: Dana1177
Learn more at: http://www.wec.ufl.edu
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Normalizing UAV Access to the National Airspace System


1
Normalizing UAV Access to the National Airspace
System Progress Report
  • April 2002

2
OUTLINE
  • OSD/FAA Program
  • Relation to Access 5/UNITE Effort
  • Facts Underlying Airspace Access Issues
  • Conclusions

3
BACKGROUND
Mid-1990s Increasing numbers of endurance UAVs needing to transit civil airspace appeared
1997-99 FAA and DoD coordinate rules for permitting military ROAs in civil airspace in FAA order 7610.4 COA process instituted
Mar 2001 OSD and FAA select ASI to work towards file and fly process to replace COA process for qualifying ROAs
Mar 2002 MOA between FAA and DoD for integrating ROAs into the NAS signed
Mar 2003 OSD UAV Roadmap released, setting goals for improving UAV reliability and file fly process
Apr 2003 AFFSA convenes DoD/FAA IPT to revise 7610.4


4
SCOPE
  • FAA/OSD project is intended to address
  • - Air traffic issues for operating military ROAs
    in U.S. civil airspace
  • FAA/OSD project is not intended to address
  • - Airworthiness issues (addressed by OSSE
    process)
  • - Aircrew qualification issues (Service-specific
    rules)
  • FAA/OSD project is intended to lay the groundwork
    for
  • - U.S. military ROA flight within international
    or foreign airspace
  • - U.S. civil/commercial ROA flight within the
    NAS

5
GOAL
  • To enable routine (same day file fly) access
    into the National Airspace System while
    maintaining an equivalent level of safety
  • No COA process required for qualifying UAV flights

6
PHASES OF FAA/OSD EFFORT
  • TECHNICAL PHASE
  • Develop software tool for evaluating See Avoid
    systems and scenarios
  • Evaluate SA system for use in Implementation
    phase
  • Obtain FAA approval/concurrence of selected SA
    system
  • REGULATORY PHASE
  • Propose File Fly language for FAA order 7610.4J
  • Coordinate FF language through AFFSA led IPT
  • Publish revised 7610.4J
  • IMPLEMENTATION PHASE
  • Select UAV and integrate SA system
  • Deploy UAV/SA system
  • File DD175 and fly planned demonstration
  • Revise 7610.4J with lessons learned, as needed

P

P


7
DEMONSTRATION (Notional Route)
New England Region
Northwest Mountain Region
Springfield
Great Lakes Region
8
6
Ft. Dodge
Casper
Eastern Region
9
Western Pacific Region
Dayton
7
NASA Wallops Island Mission Control
Central Region
5
1
Kingman
4
Southwest Region
GOALS
Southern Region
Hobbs
  • Exercise File Fly Procedure
  • Employ FAA-approved SA system

3
Valdosta
2
Lake Charles
REQUIREMENTS
USAF UAV Battlelab B/U Mission Control
  • Land and Takeoff in each FAA Region
  • File IFR flight plan for Class E airspace
  • Fly 600 nm logs between sunrise and sunset

8
COOPERATIVE EFFORTS
  • FAA/OSD, 2001-2005
  • Technical Phase See Avoid Requirements
    Quantification
  • Regulatory Phase File Fly Procedures
  • Implementation Phase FF Demonstration of
    SA-equipped UAV
  • Access 5, 2003-2007
  • Step 1 File COA to/from SUA to FL400
  • Step 2 File COA to/from SUA to FL180
  • Step 3 File Fly to/from ROA Airports to FL180
  • Step 4 Lost Link Abort into ROA Airports
  • UNITE, 2002
  • Commercially-oriented counterpart to Access 5

g
9
CONSOLIDATING AIRSPACE EFFORTS
Civil (Commercial)
Public
Military
Other State
Class E
FL600
FL400
Class A
FL180
Class E
1200 ft AGL
Class G
UNITE
Access 5
FAA/OSD
10
TIMELINES OF EFFORTS
TECHNICAL (SAMARCAT/DRA/VACS)
REGULATORY (7610.4 REV)
IMPLEMENTATION (DEMO)
FF
SUA/FL400
COA
SUA/FL180
COA
Airport/FL 180
FF
FAA/OSD
Airport/FL 180/ Alternate Recovery
FF
UNITE/Access 5
FY 02
FY 03
FY 05
FY 06
FY 07
FY 04
11
LAYING THE GROUNDWORK
ROA Flight in Foreign Airspace
ROA Flight in International Airspace
Civil ROA Airworthiness
Civil ROA Traffic Ops
Civil ROA Crew Qualifications
Public ROA Crew Qualifications
Public ROA Airworthiness
Public ROA Traffic Ops
12
DEFINING FAAs FLYING DEVICES
Regulated Aircraft
Remotely Operated Aircraft (Global Hawk)
Regulated UAVs (Pioneer)
Unregulated UAVs (Dragon Eye)
  • Regulated Non-Aircraft
  • Ultralights (air vehicles)
  • Balloons
  • Model Rockets
  • Unregulated Non-Aircraft
  • RC models

Only aircraft are certified airworthy and
require licensed pilots
13
ISSUES with CURRENT PROCESS
  • Process for authorizing ROA flights in the
    National Airspace Systems (NAS) is too cumbersome
  • ROA flights currently treated as exceptional
    events
  • Up to 60 days prior notification required to
    obtain a COA
  • Process for authorizing ROA flights is too
    restrictive
  • Key terms are open to interpretation
  • Requirements for additional onboard equipment,
    chase planes, ground observers, and local
    coordination increase ROA operating costs
  • Process for authorizing ROA flights is not
    standardized
  • Nine FAA regions, each imposing differing
    requirements for ROAs
  • Complicates planning for any ROA flight
    transiting two or more regions
  • Europe (13 nations) moving ahead to establish
    uniform set of ROA standards

14
APPROACHES
Issue
Possible Approach
Example Outcome
Too Cumbersome
Replace COA process
DD175-like process for filing flight plans
Too Restrictive
Develop system-based definition for See Avoid
Update to AC 90-48C
Not Standardized
Use existing CFRs as patterns for ROA regulation
Modified 14 CFR 103 for tactical ROAs
15
EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY
  • ROAs can injure people and/or damage property in
    two ways
  • Falling from the sky ground casualties
  • Colliding in midair airborne (and possibly
    ground) casualties

Source NTSB
16
CURRENT UAV RELIABILITY
Class As per 100,000 hrs of flight
Bottom Line UAV reliability needs to improve by
a factor of 10-100
Source OSD draft study UAV Reliability, 2003.
17
AIRSPACE RESTRICTIONS
  • Military UAVs operate in military Class D
    airspace today
  • Phase in UAV flights in non-military Class B, C,
    and D airspaces
  • Allow operations in Class D when a civil/military
    MOA for ground operations is in place for that
    airfield
  • Follow with operations in Class C
  • UAVs most compatible with operations in Class B
  • Political, vice technical or procedural,
    considerations will dictate access

Bottom Line Access to NAS should follow a phased
approach
18
CONCLUSIONS
  • AFFSA-led update to 7610.4J with the FAA is key
    to demonstration phase of on-going OSD/FAA effort
  • Access 5 (OSD, FAA, NASA, and HAE UAV industry)
    offers good potential for synergy in working
    airspace access issues

19
(No Transcript)
20
KINETIC ENERGY COMPARISON
39 M
26 M
KE, FT-LB
8M 6M 4M 2M
TWO-PLACE ULTRALIGHT MAX KE 7,959,092 FT-LB
7.7 M
MAX SPEED KE
7.6 M
LOITERING KE
2.7 M
2.3 M
0.034 M
0.012 M
Dragon Eye
Pointer
Shadow
Pioneer
Hunter
Predator
21
BRIDGING THE MILITARY-CIVIL GAP
ROA Flight in Foreign Airspace
ROA Flight in International Airspace
Civil ROA Airworthiness
Civil ROA Traffic Ops
Civil ROA Crew Qualifications
FAA/OSD Effort
NASA/ERAST Effort
AIA Effort
Public ROA Crew Qualifications
Public ROA Airworthiness
Public ROA Traffic Ops
FAA Order 7610.4J Unit/System COAs
OSS E Process
DCMA Policy Letter
22
BRIDGING THE MILITARY-CIVIL GAP
ROA Flight in Foreign Airspace
Crew Quals
Airworthiness
Traffic Ops
  • ICAO
  • Or
  • Other
  • ICAO
  • Other
  • Euro JAA
  • Japan
  • Australia
  • Other


ROA Flight in International Airspace
Crew Quals
Airworthiness
Traffic Ops
  • Policy
  • ICAO
  • ICAO
  • Reliability
  • GATM
  • HMS
  • Policy
  • ICAO
  • Tech
  • RNP
  • RVSM

Civil Multi-Vehicle Ops?
FAA/OSD Effort
Public UAV/ROA Traffic
Public ROA Airworthy
Multi-Vehicle Ops Qual
Public ROA Crew Quals
Regulations
Regulations
Regulations
Technology
Technology
Technology
Regulations
Technology
  • 7610.4J
  • Service Pubs
  • Collision Avoidance
  • IFF
  • Radios
  • MH 516
  • OSSE
  • LE Engines
  • Certified
  • Controls
  • Autonomy
  • TBD
  • Multi- Capable Control Systems
  • Services
  • DCMA Policy
  • Sims
  • Course Analysis

23
WHY CANT THIS BE DONE TODAY?
  • 14 CFR does not preclude military
    (i.e.,publicUAV flight in the NAS
  • FAA Order 7610.4J is not direction to the
    Services, but
  • Service regulations impose constraints based on
    7610.4J
  • See Avoid is a capability constraint, not a
    regulatory one

Bottom Line Self-imposed constrains restrict
military UAV flight
24
SEVEN KEY ISSUES
  • Aircrew Certification
  • Airworthiness Certification
  • See Avoid
  • Collision Avoidance Systems
  • Equivalent Level of Safety (Reliability)
  • Lost Communication Procedures
  • Airspace Restrictions

25
PUBLIC AIRCRAFT EXEMPTIONS
  • Aircrew Certification
  • Services run training courses for pilots and
    sensor operators
  • DLA letter requires civilian pilots of military
    UAVs to be IFR-qualified
  • Airworthiness Certification
  • Operational, Safety, Suitability, and
    Effectiveness (OSSE) process used
  • Global Hawk currently undergoing this process

Bottom Line Self certification No FAA
certification issues prohibiting military
(public) UAV flight
26
SEE AVOID
  • AC 90-48C provides cockpit field of regard advice
  • Air Force SA Flight Tests
  • IR nose camera for Global Hawk (ASC/RAV)
  • DRA optical flow EO sensor (AFRL/SNJW)
  • Navy SA Flight Tests
  • Skywatch transponder/receiver (PMA-263)
  • Midair Collision Avoidance System (MCAS)
    (PMA-263)
  • Amphitech Oasys radar plus IR (PMA-263)

27
THE SEE IN SEE AVOID
Oncoming Traffic is
Cooperative Non-Cooperative
Active Pro - Both range and bearing provided - Functions in VMC and IMC Con - SWAP - Cost Example TCAS systems Pro - Range, bearing, and closure rate provided - Functions in VMC and IMC Con - Data link required - SWAP - Cost Example radars
Passive Pro - Cost Con - VMC only Example High Visibility Paint Pro - Cost - Detects non-transponder (all) aircraft Con - Bearing only provided - Data link required - VMC only Example EO/IR sensors
Onboard Systems are
28
COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEMS
  • TCAS-II can provide automated avoidance maneuver
  • ESC dropped objections to integrating TCAS II
    into UAVs
  • No TCAS II certified for integration into flight
    control systems (advisory only)
  • Geneva VACS flight tested (AFRL/VAAI - Nov 02)
  • DRA sensor and avoidance algorithms used to key
    maneuvers
  • Lag induced by satcom data links equals 0.24 sec
    per call/response

Bottom Line UAV operations beyond LOS
necessitate an automated SA system
29
MARCAT
  • Tool for defining see avoid criteria for
    various collision scenarios
  • Useful for evaluating adequacy of proposed
    combinations of CA systems and UAVs
  • Rheostats available for specific sensor, UAV,
    and target aircraft performance metrics
  • Visually depicts escape zones as two aircraft
    converge
  • Next step adds comparison with human eye
  • Future step provides human factors (sky
    background, target paint scheme)

Computer Demonstration
30
LOST COMMUNICATION PROCEDURES
  • Military UAVs typically programmed to
  • Climb to altitude h to reestablish contact
  • If contact not reestablished in time t, then
  • Retrace outbound route home, or
  • Fly direct to home, or
  • Continue mission
  • Mission and flight termination procedures
    distinct from those for lost comm
  • No procedure for comm-out recovery short of
    ditching aircraft

Mystery to the controller!
Bottom Line DoD standard needed for UAV lost
comms guidance
31
SUMMARY
  • Current FAA regulations do not preclude UAV
    flight in the NAS
  • See avoid is a technical capability, not a
    regulatory issue
  • Remaining key issues are procedural in nature
About PowerShow.com