Case Analysis

I have written on the effectiveness of case analysis work before and I believe it is an important academic tool. I provide my views once again as an update and testament to it's effectiveness:

As students of aviation, and in many cases - aviation professionals, it is part of our ongoing educational duty to research and analyze aviation from many angles. The goal of case analysis work is to utilize real world events and experiences and relate them to aviation in hopes of advancing our education on a particular subject. I could continue on and recite the merits of educational tools such as case analysis with academic rhetoric, but let me instead convey my thoughts on case analysis at the personal level.
First, let me state that the case analysis is effective. While I cannot and would not want to claim I now know everything about, in my particular case, UAS situational awareness. I can safely say that this case analysis has done what a well-designed tool should do…that is, assist me in conducting a task and accomplishing a goal. The task in this instance is learning, understanding, or any other word you want to call education. While this may seem apparent and requiring of no explanation on my part, I would argue that we often underestimate the value of research and write it off (excuse the pun) as simply another assignment. This cannot be further from the truth. Let me provide examples if I may:
Those of you who are my peers and have shared this educational journey with me so far know I am a designer by trade. Why this is relevant can be linked to the nature of both my work experiences and my mental mindset. Designers have to take into consideration people. While we wish we could disregard the needs of humans and focus on perfect designs, the fact that humans have to work in and around the equipment we develop is inescapable. That being said, my case analysis, as mentioned, deals with UAS situational awareness. You may ask how that relates to me, and I would not blame you as I have no ties to UAS personally, beyond academically. However, as I began research, the issues surrounding UAS situational awareness began to strike familiar ideas and issues in my mind. Factors such as ground control station’s layouts playing a factor in situational awareness brought to my attention the depth and effect design considerations have on just about any equipment and process. In short, this case analysis made me think. And in doing so I noticed an increase in perception, aiding in my understanding not only academically, but in my daily tasks.
Secondly, the case analysis builds upon existing knowledge and education and begins to migrate academic thinking to real world thinking. Basically, it helps translate what we have learned, and are learning, to real problems - not just in theory but in practice. This is a benefit, for another example, if I end up working in UAS design after graduation. Instead of going in to the field armed with little more than a text book knowledge, I can go in armed with a greater confidence that I understand the issues and tribulations ahead – both for myself and the UAS industry – due to research I have conducted prior to my induction.
Now that I have glorified case analysis as a beneficial tool, let me step back and make some recommendations to the process. For anyone looking to conduct a case analysis it should be made clear that you should research a subject you truly wish to understand better. While a greater understanding of situational awareness may serve me in the future, looking back there may have been more strategic topics that would have facilitated my academic goals and future endeavors more efficiently. Therefore, I believe particular emphasis should be placed on this fact. Additionally, a group option could prove beneficial to some. While personally I prefer individual research, there are many who could benefit from the interaction and brainstorming found in group research. While it should not be mandatory, an option could prove useful.

Overall this experience has proved to be one of the more stimulating and educational academic endeavors I have had the pleasure (along with headaches) to undertake. Research into new aviation fields can be difficult, but persistence pays off and I can appreciate and enjoy the benefits of completing the work, and I look forward to applying the lessons learned to my future endeavors.

System Development

Wildfire UAS Development

Introduction

Wildfires are an almost expected occurrence in southern California. The semi-arid conditions create instances where brush and other vegetation grow during rainy seasons, then dry out in the heat. While many of these wildfires are arguably not detrimental to people or infrastructures, there are occurrences that are, or are suspected to be. This is where the use of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) can be of benefit. UAS can provide aerial imaging on and around the wildfires to help fire management, and if needed - recue personnel. The proposed system should incorporate design features that emphasize stability, quality imaging, mobility, and ruggedness. These design criteria will allow for a stable imaging platform that is quickly deployable and is able to withstand environmental elements. This proposed system can be a vital addition to rescue efforts, and therefore should be developed quickly without compromising quality. Given the current market of available commercially-off-the-shelve (COTS) components, this system can realistically be completed in approximately six months using a rapid application development (RAD) development approach.
The following system requirements must be met in order to achieve project goals:

Wildfire UAS System Requirements

1. Transportability
1. Entire system (all elements) shall be transportable (in a hardened case) and weight less than 50 lbs (one-person lift)
1.1 - Case shall provide cutouts for both the air vehicle and hand-held GCS including support equipment
1.2 - Case shall be solid and liquid resistant with a minimum rating of IP22
1.3 - Case shall be able to withstand a drop from 5 feet without damaging all system elements inside
1.2. Aircraft shall be able to be deployed under 5 minutes
1.2.1 - Aircraft shall be able to be assembled (if applicable) by one person
1.2.2 - Aircraft shall be capable of being assembled in under 4 minutes
1.2.3 - Data-link shall be established under 1 minute
2. Cost
2. Entire system (all elements) shall be under $10,000.00
2.1 – Entire system (all elements) shall cost under $10.00 to operate up to one hour
2.2 – Aircraft repairs shall not exceed aircraft cost
2.3 – Aircraft maintenance costs shall be under $30.00/hr.
3. Payload
3. Shall be capable of color daytime video operation up to 500 feet AGL
3.1 - Shall provide a minimum of 10 frames per second (FPS) video feed
3.2 - Shall provide 45 degree field of view (FOV)
3.2 Shall be capable of infrared (IR) video operation up to 500 feet AGL
3.2.1 – Shall provide a minimum of 10 FPS video feed
3.2.2 – Shall provide 45 degree FOV
3.3 Shall be interoperable with C2 and data-link
3.3.1 – Shall operate on 4G data-link
3.3.2 – Shall not interfere with controllability of aircraft
3.4 Shall use power provided by air vehicle element
3.4.1 - Shall not degrade air vehicle vertical or horizontal performance by more than 10%
3.4.2 - Shall not reduce system operable time by more than 30%
4. Testing Requirements
4.1 Transportability
4.1.1 Carrying Case
4.1.1.1 – Inspect case to ensure cutouts are present
4.1.1.2 – Spray case with water at no greater than 15 degrees (IP22) vertical and ensure equipment inside is dry
4.1.1.3. – Verify the case can withstand a drop from 5 feet
4.1.1.3 – Verify equipment inside is not damaged after drop
4.1.2 Deployability 
4.1.2.1 – Verify air vehicle can be assembled by one person
4.1.2.2 – Verify assembly takes less than 4 minutes
4.1.2.3 – Verify data-link can be established in under 1 minute
5. 1 Payload
5.1.1 – Verify daytime video data-link is established
5.1.2 – Verify IR data-link is established
5.1.3 - Ascend aircraft with imaging payload to 500 ft AGL
5.1.4 - Verify color daytime video data-link is maintained at 500 ft AGL
5.1.5 - Verify IR data-link is maintained at 500 ft AGL
5.1.6 – Verify video is maintaining 10 FPS or greater
5.1.7 – Verify FOV is 45 degrees
5.2 Interoperability 
5.2.1 Verify C2, data-link, and video data-link are active
5.2.2 Verify C2, data-link, and video data-link are operable simultaneously
5.2.3 Ascend aircraft with C2, data-link, and video data-link active simultaneously
5.2.4 Verify C2, data-link, and video data are all operable simultaneously at 500 ft AGL
5.3 Power
5.3.1 Verify power for payload(s) derive from the air vehicles power source
5.3.2 Verify air vehicle performance with active payloads does not decrease more than 10%
5.3.3 Verify air vehicle flight time with active payloads does not decrease more than 30%

Summery

By adhering to these design criteria, and following proper component testing procedures, it can be safely assumed a UAS meeting wildfire monitoring task goals can be designed in 6 months. The platform will be small but rugged, and many of the needed components are COTS, therefore much of the developmental considerations will fall under acquisition decisions rather than ground-up designing and manufacturing of components. This dramatically reduces lead times and positively influences and supports the RAD development time frame.

UAS Streamflow Monitoring

Streamflow monitoring is a unique application of UAS. In many mountainous regions the water found in streams and creeks is a vital resource for farms where other sources of water is difficult to obtain. These lands rely on water from mountain sources to provide for agricultural needs as well as for human consumption. In the state of Colorado land owners have what are called water rights. These land owners who have water rights are entitled to a measured amount of water from naturally occurring sources such as rivers, streams, and creeks. To measure this flow, sensors are in place by the Colorado Division of Water Resources, however these sensors only monitor major waterways leaving land owners responsible for monitoring their own streams. This is typically accomplished with Parshall flumes – a device that is placed in the streamflow and can accurately measure the volume of water traveling through it (CSU, 2014). Often these water gauges are located in difficult to reach areas due to the natural terrain conditions of mountainous regions. This is where the use of UAS can be of benefit as it allows the land owners to monitor streamflow without having to travel along the difficult and often dangerous terrain. Additionally, the ability for UAS to operate with relatively low noise pollution gives UAS a much needed benefit in environments where domestic animals and wildlife reside. Three platforms that are ideally suited for streamflow monitoring are the DJI S900, the Lockheed Martin Indago, and the Aerovironment Qube UAS. As small VTOL UAS they are ideally suited for imaging tasks in mountainous regions.
DJI S900
The DJI S900 is a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) hexacopter. It is purpose built specifically for imaging payloads and is marketed towards photographers and videographers. However, because the target of streamflow monitoring is a visual gauge, the S900 is a capable platform for this task. Also because it is built with photography and videography in mind it is a very stable imaging platform. It is designed with arms eight degrees in inversion, and 3 degrees inclination (DJI, 2014) – creating a dihedral effect and making the platform more stable compared to a traditional helicopter configuration.
Lockheed Martin Indago
The Lockheed Martin Indago is a purpose built VTOL quadcopter. Designed with military and search and rescue in mind, the Indago is lightweight and portable yet rugged to meet professional applications. The entire system can be stored in a small briefcase, making this ideal for Water Resource personnel to travel with. Additionally, the ground control station (GCS) is weather resistant (Lockheed Martin, 2014) so as to maintain situational awareness even in poor environmental conditions, a benefit in mountain areas where weather is often unpredictable.
Aerovironment Qube
The Aerovironment Qube is also a quadcopter, and has been developed with search and rescue as its primary application. This makes it rugged and portable similar to the Lockheed Martin Indago. However, the Qube has a distinct commercial application advantage in the GCS – a system capable of being used on a touch-enabled tablet computer. This interface may prove to reduce the learning curve and attract a larger market of potential civilian operators.
Application Considerations
There are advantages to using small UAS (sUAS) for streamflow monitoring, such as portability, storage, and maneuverability. These are all needed elements in mountainous environments where the UAV may have to navigate small spaces, such as between trees, valleys, and boulders. Their agility is a benefit, however the drawback to these sUAS is flight time. By having to use small VTOL UAS, the battery life on these electric powered systems offers relatively little flight time, approximately 40 minutes for both the Indago and Qube, and 18 minutes for the S900. Additionally, there are legal barriers as directed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that limit UAS operation in the National Airspace System (NAS) to line of sight (LOS) only. Beyond line of sight (BLOS) is prohibited without authorization (FAA, 2014), this can be a challenge to operating in mountainous regions where there are many visual obstacles and hills to block view.


References:
DJI (2014). DJI Spreading Wings S900 (2014). Retrieved from:
http://www.dji.com/product/spreadingwings-s900/feature

Lockheed Martin (2014). Indago VTOL Quad Rotor (2014). Retrieved from:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/procerus/quad-vtol.html

Aerovironment (2014). Qube UAS (2014). Retrieved from: https://www.avinc.com/public
safety/qube

Federal Aviation Administration (2014). Model Aircraft Operations Limits (2014). Retrieved
from:  https://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/model_aircraft_operators/

Colorado State University (2014). Father of the Flume: Ralph Parshall (2013). Water Resources
Archive. Retrieved from: http://lib.colostate.edu/archives/water/parshall/flume.html

UAS in the NAS

One of the great hurdles to unmanned aircraft system (UAS) integration into the national airspace system (NAS) is coordination – both with air traffic control (ATC) and other manned and unmanned aircraft. Safety is always priority, and the successful integration of manned and unmanned systems is dependent on keeping the skies safe regardless of the type of aircraft being flown. One way to ensure this safety is met is to treat unmanned systems as though they were manned. Vice president of the Airline Pilots Association Sean Cassidy stated that UAVs, “…should be certified in the same way manned aircraft are and that pilots should receive equivalent training. (Defense News, 2013).” This shows the mindset of aerospace professionals, and serves as good direction. To that end, UAS should be treated as any other aircraft, and should be equipped with similar technologies that facilitate positive ATC interactions. Transponders and sense-and-avoid capabilities are two technologies that medium to large UAS need in order to function safely with other aircraft. Maintenance should be on par if not greater than manned systems to set high standards and ensure accidents are not directly attributed to poor maintenance practices. This is especially important at the early stages of UAS NAS integration where UAS are already being looked at with concern and being introduced with much resistance from professionals and the general public alike. Every step needs to be taken to ensure an oversight is not to blame, especially during the early stages of integration.

Another area of importance to NAS integration are situational awareness issues. It is the nature of UAS to be lacking in naturally occurring situational awareness aids found in manned pilots, therefore, attempts should be made to mitigate this deficiency through integrated technology and on-board sensory payloads. The goal being to provide ground control stations (GCS) with all the situational awareness possible in an attempt to avoid in air collisions as well as maintain environmental awareness.

Lastly, all UAS need to have an emergency procedure with lost-link controls in place. Lost-link issues can be devastating to equipment and surroundings as is; add in a public setting in NAS and the results are potentially catastrophic. To avoid such scenarios, all UAS need to have multiple layers of safety and technologies to aid in the event of lost-link. Many companies are working toward lost-link technologies and the FAA and MITRE Corporation have come up with one device known as the Intelligent Analyzer. The goal of MITRE and the Intelligent Analyzer is to aid not only the ground pilots but ATC and other pilots in the area surrounding the UAS. The device transmits a message to ATC and pilots through emergency frequencies alerting them of the intent of the aircraft (MITRE, 2012). It is through these types of advancements that UAS will eventually fly safely with manned systems without negatively impacting controller workload and ATC operations.

References:
Defense News (2014). How a Large U.S. Navy UAV Crashed in Maryland, from 18,000 feet
(2013). Retrieved from: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130107/C4ISR02/301070006/
MITRE Corporation (2014). Unmanned Aircraft System Airspace Integration: Intelligent
Analyzer (2012). Center for Advanced Aviation System Development. Retrieved from: https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/publications/Unmanned_Aircraft_System_Airspace_Integration_Intelligent_Analyzer.pdf

System Design

The following theoretical situation is presented for system design consideration:

 

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.

Analysis

In order to obtain product goals, the system process must meet pre-determined design criteria. It is important to, “Address and link customer needs, requirements and contracts (IBM, 2013).” In this case we have two design teams not wanting to redesign to reduce weight. Considerations must be made for the customer as well as the safety engineers to ensure the aircraft performs as specified, and do so safely, thus managing constraints. Viewing this situation as an “internal customer”, it is essential that what was promised meets with the delivered system. According to Howard Loewen from MicroPilot, “Investing in a standard and efficient requirements-driven design process helps UAV manufacturers bring their product to market swiftly, ensures the development of hight-quality systems, and generates more accurate and timely quotes for their customers (MicroPilot, 2013).”

To resolve this issue all factors must be considered; both teams did not make their products “in house” to save costs, and neither wants to redesign. The priority here is to deliver the best product; so to that end, I would have both teams redesign, and here is why: if both teams redesign at a higher cost now, the end product will be improved on and a proprietary design created. In the long term the initial cost will be absorbed and the overall cost reduced due to using our own superior design. This positively distinguishes the product while exceeding customer demands, which in a given market is usually indication the product will do well. Meanwhile, the weight from both teams will be reduced, leaving the current customer far happier with our product. This “next generation, enhanced” version meets the customer’s needs, as well as solves the design conflict. As part of the “requirements to product”, the system functional requirements take priority; and by meeting and exceeding the requirements the marketability for our design increases and so will our margin. 

In terms of a system design flow chart – the mechanical and electrical specifications need to be revisited, leading to the “improved” design and implementation phase. From there tests can be made leading to the final systems functional test; this time with the weight requirements met and in doing so giving the customer what they want, and making a good move for the company.

References:

Howard Loewen (2014). Requirements-based UAV Design Process Explained – A UAV

manufacturer’s guide (2013). Retrieved from: http://www.micropilot.com/pdf/requirements-based-uav.pdf

IBM (2014). Ten steps to effective requirements management (2013). Requirements

definition and management. Retrieved from: http://public.dhe.ibm.com/common/ssi/ecm/en/raw14059usen/RAW14059USEN. PDF

Historic UAS Influence on Modern Platforms

Early historic unmanned systems and modern UAS both share a common trait in that they both are considered cutting edge technologies then and now regardless of the fact UAS began its life over a century ago. This can be attributed to technological development throughout the design life of the systems. Beginning with unmanned aerial balloons and culminating in sophisticated airframes such as the Global Hawk; UAS has a history of being on the leading edge of military technologies.

To put this into context I would like to address a historical UAS and create a comparison and make correlations with a modern take on a similar platform. During WWII Reginald Denny created a prototype target drone for the military based on his work with model airplanes. This aircraft, the RP-1, was a radio controlled unmanned aircraft created to fit the role of target drone. However as Denny refined his design the RP-4 was born – the first reconnaissance UAS (U.S. Army, 2010), along with the subsequent RP-5. With a length at 8’8” and a wingspan of 12’ 3”, these early aircraft can be compared to modern small UAVs such as the Raven or Puma. These UAS are all classified as small platforms, and like the historic RP-4, the Raven and Puma share mission objectives – namely reconnaissance through imaging payloads.

The Puma UAS developed by AeroVironment is a fixed wing mono-plane with a 10’ wingspan – roughly the same as the Radioplane. The size of the Puma makes transport and deployment in difficult or remote locations more manageable, much like the Radioplane. However, as technology has progressed airframes have become lighter. The historic Radioplane weighed 104 lbs. and required a catapult launch system. With the invention of lighter materials todays UAS, including the Puma, are much lighter and more durable, with the Puma weighing in at 13.5 lbs (AeroVironment, 2014). This gives the Puma the ability to hand-launch, reducing the amount of peripherals needed to conduct operation.

Materials composition has played a significant role in the capabilities of UAS, and at approximately 90 lbs. difference in the historic Radioplane and modern Puma, the advantage is apparent. Additional technologies have been implemented to small UAS overtime, including GPS navigation for autonomy, stabilization systems, and improved radio transmitters and receivers. However, that being said, if not for the Denny and the Radioplane trailblazing early UAS development and showing the military the strategic and tactical benefits of such an invention; we would not be in the advance stages of UAS growth and implementation that we are today.

References:

US Army Combined Arms Center (2014). Unmanned Aerial Systems: A Historical Perspective (2010). Retrieved from: https://erau.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-15161506-dt-content-rid-76607724_4/institution/Worldwide_Online/ASCI_GR_Courses/ASCI_530/External_Link/M1_Readings_Unmanned_Aerial_Systems_A_historical_perpective.pdf

AeroVironment (2014). UAS: RQ-20A Puma AE (2014). Retrieved from: http://www.avinc.com/uas/small_uas/puma/

Case Analysis as an Effective Tool

As students of aviation, and in many cases - aviation professionals, it is part of our ongoing educational duty to research and analyze aviation from many angles. The goal of case analysis work is to utilize real world events and experiences and relate them to aviation in hopes of advancing our education on a particular subject. I could continue on and recite the merits of educational tools such as case analysis with academic rhetoric, but let me instead convey my thoughts on case analysis at the personal level.
First, let me state that the case analysis is effective. While I cannot and would not want to claim I now know everything about, in my particular case, UAS situational awareness. I can safely say that this case analysis has done what a well-designed tool should do…that is, assist me in conducting a task and accomplishing a goal. The task in this instance is learning, understanding, or any other word you want to call education. While this may seem apparent and requiring of no explanation on my part, I would argue that we often underestimate the value of research and write it off (excuse the pun) as simply another assignment. This cannot be further from the truth. Let me provide examples if I may:
Those of you who are my peers and have shared this educational journey with me so far know I am a designer by trade. Why this is relevant can be linked to the nature of both my work experiences and my mental mindset. Designers have to take into consideration people. While we wish we could disregard the needs of humans and focus on perfect designs, the fact that humans have to work in and around the equipment we develop is inescapable. That being said, my case analysis, as mentioned, deals with UAS situational awareness. You may ask how that relates to me, and I would not blame you as I have no ties to UAS personally, beyond academically. However, as I began research, the issues surrounding UAS situational awareness began to strike familiar ideas and issues in my mind. Factors such as ground control station’s layouts playing a factor in situational awareness brought to my attention the depth and effect design considerations have on just about any equipment and process. In short, this case analysis made me think. And in doing so I noticed an increase in perception, aiding in my understanding not only academically, but in my daily tasks.
Secondly, the case analysis builds upon existing knowledge and education and begins to migrate academic thinking to real world thinking. Basically, it helps translate what we have learned, and are learning, to real problems - not just in theory but in practice. This is a benefit, for another example, if I end up working in UAS design after graduation. Instead of going in to the field armed with little more than a text book knowledge, I can go in armed with a greater confidence that I understand the issues and tribulations ahead – both for myself and the UAS industry – due to research I have conducted prior to my induction.
Now that I have glorified case analysis as a beneficial tool, let me step back and make some recommendations to the process. For anyone looking to conduct a case analysis it should be made clear that you should research a subject you truly wish to understand better. While a greater understanding of situational awareness may serve me in the future, looking back there may have been more strategic topics that would have facilitated my academic goals and future endeavors more efficiently. Therefore, I believe particular emphasis should be placed on this fact. Additionally, a group option could prove beneficial to some. While personally I prefer individual research, there are many who could benefit from the interaction and brainstorming found in group research. While it should not be mandatory, an option could prove useful.
Overall this experience has proved to be one of the more stimulating and educational academic endeavors I have had the pleasure (along with headaches) to undertake. Research into new aviation fields can be difficult, but persistence pays off and I can appreciate and enjoy the benefits of completing the work, and I look forward to applying the lessons learned to my future endeavors.