Sunday, October 12, 2014

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.

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

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.

Sunday, September 21, 2014

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

Saturday, September 6, 2014

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

Saturday, August 23, 2014

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

Friday, August 15, 2014

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/

Thursday, July 31, 2014

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.

UAS Ethics and Morality

The debate surrounding the morality and ethics of unmanned systems is nothing new. From the first announcement of their use in military conflicts questions have risen as to the moral implications. This debate and concern continues today, and has grown arguably more vocal in public and political circles. The intent behind UAS is good, but like any technological advancement there are concerns and questions that are asked, and rightfully so. My thoughts on the subject are as follows.

UAS Ethics and Morality
Abstract
The militant use of unmanned aircraft systems has raised many issues and concerns, particularly with the general public. The view toward UAS has been one of interest and concern, namely in the moral and ethical aspects surrounding its use. There are two major areas within the UAS debate that should be addressed; first, the current method of which we utilize this technology, and secondly, the future implications of this technology. 
Current Methods
The current use of UAS raises ethical concerns as to how this technology influences aspects of war in terms of target identification, and how we conduct war. In the terms of Linda Johansson, UAS can make war seem “risk free”. Johansson’s view, one that is shared by much of the general public, is that this risk-free approach to war gives way to ignorance of human life and will only lower the threshold for starting war (Johansson, 2011). The argument therefore lies in a comparison to what “traditional” war time actions include, versus this new approach using UAS. 
For the purpose of this paper the term “traditionally” is used to convey current and past methods. Traditionally, manned aircraft conduct all airborne operations - from intelligence to combat. This places a human in the battlefield and raises the risk and consequences of conducting war. It is for these reasons that if you remove the human element there is a fear people will conduct war recklessly or without just reasoning due to the direct risk and consequences being associated with the human element being removed from the battlefield. Kreps put it this way, “…we argue that UAVs—by shielding U.S. soldiers from injury in the field—both insulate the U.S. domestic population from the effects of an on-going war and allow strategists to avoid the logical and ethical pitfalls associated with advances in technology (Kreps, 2012).” These are just concerns, and so, many people and organizations believe new legislation and laws of war be either created, or reviewed, in light of the rise of UAS usage.
What the Future Holds
The future implications of UAS lead to a separate but equally justified concern; that allowing UAS to go unchecked into war time operations will lead to further distancing between human ethics and the way in which we conduct war. Distancing, in this instance, refers to the amount in which the human element is involved in the UAS process. Critics and proponents alike believe UAS will give way to automated technologies. Automation can, theoretically, allow for the use of UAS or other robotic technology that can identify, target, and even kill, on their own without a human element in the processing loop. Given the current state of UAS technology, even though it is growing in popularity, it is safe to assume UAS will not be implementing automation (at least successfully) any time soon. The issues behind operation and accident rates are still too high to jump to any hasty conclusions as to what the future will bring. These fears of an automated killing UAS in the future are a bit premature, however they are effecting current legislation considerations. 
Conclusion
Given these two areas of concern, both the current and future ethical implications of remote warfare, it can be determined that the correct – moral - path is not visible. Like many military, if not all, military technologies; the ethics behind the use of UAS are best determined by a case by case analysis. When armored vehicles first entered the battlefield, or machine guns fired for the first time, there were those who viewed them with moral concern. Then, like now, it can be argued that armor or any type of technology that gives the user the “upper hand” can be viewed as ethically wrong. The correct action therefore is to continue to develop UAS into a more reliable and efficient military platform, and use it in a manner that adheres to the current laws of war, as well as ethics. No one knows what the future will bring or what technology may rise that will make UAS obsolete or unnecessary. It is for these reasons UAS operations should continue; the cancellation of UAS programs will not slow the rise of automation. If time has shown humans anything, it is that technology progresses no matter what. If we do not utilize the technology as it comes, someone else will. The best action to take, therefore, is to use what technology comes along in a matter consistent with the laws, morals, and ethics found in all humans, and their societies.
Resources:
Johansson, Linda (2014). Is It Morally Right to Use Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
in War? (2011). Philosophy & Technology, Vol. 24, Sep, 2011. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1023032172/abstract?accountid=27203
Kreps, Sarah (2014). The Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Contemporary Conflict: A Legal
and Ethical Analysis (2012). Polity, Vol. 44, April, 2012. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/992898373/fulltextPDF?accountid=27203

Friday, July 25, 2014

UAS Crew Selection

UAS crew selection is often debated. Should operators be required to have more training? What requirements should be met, and should operators be required to have pilot experience? These are the types of questions many are asking, professionals and the general public alike. 
In a mock exercise to try and understand crew selection, the following scenario was given; one in which a company needed to fill operator positions for two UAS, one small and one medium. The following was my analysis and recommendation to meet the company's needs.


UAS Crew Member Selection
Abstract
The company seeks to obtain crew members for newly acquired Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS). The two systems, the Insitu ScanEagle and General Atomics Ikhana both require minimum crew member qualifications and training, however, they vary in their capabilities and roles and so crew selection needs to reflect this. The FAA policy document entitled, “Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Operational Approval” outlines the requirements expected from crew members as well as the requirements the company is expected to meet during UAS oceanic environmental study operations.
Analysis
Insitu ScanEagle 
The Insitu ScanEagle is a single operator UAS. As a relatively small UAS (wingspan 10.2’) The ScanEagle does not require multi-crew operation, however due to this fact it is recommended that a highly qualified crew member be selected as all the responsibilities and requirements dictated by the FAA fall solely on one individual.
The selected individual will operate the Insitu Common Open-mission Management Command and Control (ICOMC2) ground station. This ground station is a small hand carried device, with multi-screen expansion capability. Due to these factors, it is recommended that a single UAS operator be hired with adequate training specific to Insitu if possible, be versed in the systems use, and is FAA compliant. Due to the single operation, a highly qualified individual will be knowledgeable in basic UAS maintenance to aid the company in meeting requirement stated as:
“Proponents for UAS used in public aircraft operations should follow their own agency’s procedures and guidelines to maintain continued airworthiness at a level which ensures they continue to operate the aircraft safely (FAA, 2013).”
The FAA requires this potential crew member to hold a private pilot’s license and be specifically trained in the Insitu ScanEagle as stated by the FAA when referencing the pilot in command (PIC), “(The PIC) Must be trained and qualified on the specific UAS for the conduct of the flight (FAA, 2013).” Additionally, the FAA states that, “Proponents must train all UAS crewmembers in CRM. The current edition of FAA AC 120-51, Crew Resource Management Training, or an FAA-recognized equivalent applies to UAS operations (FAA, 2013).” This falls to the company to provide CRM training to the operator, however a highly qualified applicant will hold previous CRM training. A highly qualified applicant will also be familiar with FCC licensing and frequency requirements per FAA guidelines: “Non-Federal public agencies, such as universities and State/local law enforcement, and all civil UAS proponents generally require a license from the FCC as authorization to transmit on frequencies other than those in the unlicensed bands (900 megahertz (MHz), 2.4 gigahertz (GHz), and 5.8 GHz).”
Please refer to the following excerpt outlining training and experience:
PIC Recent Flight Experience (Currency). The proponent must provide documentation showing the pilots maintain an appropriate level of recent pilot experience in the UAS being operated, or in an FAA-certified simulator. At a minimum, the PIC must conduct three takeoffs (launch) and three landings (recovery) in the specific UAS within the previous 90 days (excluding pilots who do not conduct launch/recovery during normal/emergency operations); or as prescribed by the proponent’s accepted recurrent training and currency program (FAA, 2013).”
It should be noted that a highly qualified crew member will be familiar with the Insitu ScanEagle and have successfully operated launch, recovery, and emergency operations prior to employment.
General Atomics Ikhana
The General Atomics Ikhana is a UAS platform created with research missions in mind. The Ikhana is a medium to high altitude UAS that requires multiple crew members, the selection of which should follow FAA guidelines and requirements. Crew must at a minimum hold private pilots licenses to meet FAA standards, as well as be trained specifically for the Ikhana UAS. Although FAA states the PIC is required to operate takeoff, landing, and emergency operations within 90 days of operation, an added layer of safety would be to have all crew members meet these qualifications. As such, at a minimum, a PIC should be hired with these qualifications; additional personnel who would meet the “highly qualified” status would also meet these qualifications.
Additionally, at least one crew member should understand and be able to meet the basic radio frequency requirements by the FCC as outlined by the FAA. It is assumed the company has no previous UAS experience and therefore a highly qualified candidate will be knowledgeable of FCC regulations as they apply to UAS. The unique ability of the Ikhana to perform Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) operations also requires that an observer crew member be obtained. The following requirements should be met outlining Visual Observers (VOs). According to the FAA:
“Observer Requirement. Visual flight rules (VFR) UAS operations may be authorized utilizing either ground-based or airborne VOs onboard a dedicated chase aircraft. A VO must be positioned to assist the PIC, to exercise the see-and-avoid responsibilities required by §§ 91.111, 91.113, and 91.115 by scanning the area around the aircraft for potentially conflicting traffic and assisting the PIC with navigational awareness (FAA, 2013).”
When operating long range missions, it is required that the aircraft maintain two-way radio communication with ATC when these criteria dictate so:
The aircraft is being operated in Class A or D airspace (under §§ 91.135
or 91.129) or, when required, in Class E and G airspace (under §§ 91.127
or 91.126). See subparagraph 13.q.(2) and (3) for operations in Class B
or C airspace; or
The aircraft is being operated under instrument flight rules (IFR); or
It is stipulated under the provisions of any issued COA or Special Airworthiness
Certificate.
A highly qualified crew member will be familiar with this requirement and be able to maintain proper ATC communication when needed.
General Requirements dictating Crew Selection 
The operation of UAS in public has certain requirements and recommendation per the FAA that effect crew member selection. As discussed, the company should maintain Crew Resource Management Training, and ensure the PIC maintains CRM and that no other activities occur that conflict with safe operation of the UAS. Radio frequencies should be monitored and approved prior to operation, crew members should be aware of these requirements as stated:
“Every UAS proponent must have the appropriate National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) or Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authorization/approval to transmit on the radio frequencies (RF) used for UAS uplink and downlink of control, telemetry, and payload information (FAA, 2013).”
Additionally, such factors as air worthiness must be maintained at all times, a highly qualified crew member will be able assist the companies endeavor to maintain air worthiness through proper maintenance and knowledge of air worthiness requirements.
Lastly, when selecting a PIC, medical certificates requirements must be met:
“PIC Medical. The PIC must maintain, at a minimum, a valid FAA second-class medical certificate issued under 14 CFR part 67 or the FAA-recognized equivalent. The second-class medical certificate expires at the end of the last day of the 12th month after the month of the date of the examination shown on the medical certificate listed in § 61.23 (FAA, 2013).”
Summary
While many other factors not listed make for a highly qualified crew member, these basic requirements should be met or exceeded to ensure FAA compliance and recommendation are being considered during crew member selection. Both UAS discussed require the same basic crew qualifications, however, in the case of the Ikhana where additional multi-crew and BLOS requirements must be met, the selection of crew members may vary based on their role, i.e. PIC position requires additional responsibilities. If selecting a crew that will utilize a rotating position schedule, then all requirements outlined for PIC must be maintained by all crew members.

Resources:
Federal Aviation Administration (2014). Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Operational
Approval – National Policy (2013). Retrieved from: http://uas.usgs.gov/pdf/FAA/FAA_UAS_Operational_Approval_8900.207_2013_2014.pdf

Saturday, July 19, 2014

Operational Risk Management

Risk management has been the focus this week, and I can safely say that although I have not learned all there is to know, I do feel much more versed in risks and hazard assessment. While conducting analysis and reviewing all steps and processes involved in risk assessment I realized that when you start thinking about potential risk they are so numerous that it is almost disheartening to try and identify them all. However, by using certain tools we can mitigate risk and hazards to the best of our ability. The following analysis takes a look at a few of those tools:

Operational Risk Management

Abstract
Undergoing any aerospace operation requires planning and analysis. Small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS) have a unique set of challenges beyond that of regular unmanned operations due to the deployment, mission, launch, and recovery associated with their use. It is therefore necessary to identify and resolve the unique hazards associated with sUAS operations.
This analysis will highlight some of the steps needed to document hazards and conduct risk assessment. The use of Preliminary Hazard List and Analysis (PHL/A), Operational Hazard Review and Analysis (OHR&A), and Operational Risk Management (ORM) assessments, help document known hazards and suggest mitigating actions. It should be noted that it is not the intent of this analysis to identify technical or specific operational hazards and unique factors associated with a given sUAS situation, rather it is the intent to provide basic hazards to better convey the role and use of PHL/A, OHR&A, and ORM as risk assessment tools.

Analysis
This analysis uses MIL-STD-882D/E to determine probability and severity ratings to create a matrix outcome and determine risk level (RL). The following figures will be referenced in the PHL/A, OHR&A, and ORM. According to MIL-STD-882D/E:

Figure 1 – Probability Levels
Figure 2 – Severity Categories
By referencing figure 1 and figure 2 during analysis we can combine the two to determine the level of risk the hazard poses using figure 3, Risk Assessment Matrix:

Figure 3 – Risk Assessment Matrix
The first step in risk assessment is to identify initial hazards. The preliminary hazard list and analysis (PHL/A) is a tool suited for this very task. In the following example of a PHL/A the planning stage of operating a Raven sUAS is considered. The hazards listed are for example only and provide basic details. Please note the Probability, Severity, and RL columns letter and number indicators are found on figures 1, 2, and 3.


Figure 4 – PHL/A
Considerations for sUAS are dramatically different from large or medium UAS, factors such as wind and launch/runway area are of greater concern. Wind will effect a small UAS greater, often inhibiting flight. Additionally, sUAS are often used in areas not well suited for aircraft, so surrounding terrain such as trees and structures become a hazard. As listed on the Mitigating Actions column, initial steps would be to determine the surroundings, making sure wind speed is within operational bounds, and your intended flight path is clear of obstacles. Weather, and launch space are but two important factors for sUAS hazard consideration. Provided are two additional hazards more common to any unmanned aircraft system; mechanical failures, and radio issues. Again the mitigating action column suggests checking both the aircraft and radio equipment prior to launch. These are just examples of hazards within the first stage – Planning – that can occur. Each stage; Planning, Staging, Launch, Flight, and Recovery would need to be addressed and hazards identified.
The next step is to perform an Operational Hazard Review & Analysis. The OHR&A looks at what actions were taken and builds upon the PHL/A. If any change in the initial hazard track are identified then the corrective or updated action should be listed along with its evolved probability and severity, ending in recommendations for mitigation. Again, please note the letter and number designators correspond to figures 1, 2, and 3.


Figure 5 – OHR&A

Once the PHL/A and OHR&A are completed the overall operational hazard picture begins to take shape. Mitigating actions have been defined, and a checklist can be performed. The Operational Risk Management (ORM) assessment is a process that aids in determining all hazards have been addressed and risk assessments performed. The following ORM was retrieved from the U.S. Air Force Air University:

OPERATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT (ORM) ASSESSMENT
(OPNAVINST 3500.39 FIVE-STEP PROCESS)


Activity/Department:  ____Human Factors in Unmanned Systems - Raven sUAS_      

 
Step 1.  Identify Hazards:

a.  Has a flowchart been completed identifying major steps of   Yes No N/A
    the work process?  

b. Have applicable hazards of each step with possible causes      for those hazards been documented?  If yes, attach copy   ( x ) (  ) (  )
    (format on page 3).  If no, comment on page 2.  
Step 2.  Assess Hazards.  Each hazard identified in  Step 1 will be           assigned a “Hazard Severity Category,” a “Mishap Probability           Rating,” and a “Risk Assessment Code (RAC).”  The below           matrices are a guide for assessing hazards.
  ( x ) (  ) (  )
a.  Has each hazard been assigned a Hazard Severity Category?   ( x ) (  ) (  )
b.  Has each hazard been assigned a Mishap Probability Rating?   ( x ) (  ) (  )
c.  Has each hazard been assigned a RAC?

Hazard Severity Category Matrix: ( x ) (  ) (  )
Work Process:  ___Planning & Staging_____________________________________________________________


I (death, loss, or grave damage)
II (severe injury, damage, or inefficiencies)
III (minor injuries, damage, or inefficiencies)
IV (minimal threat to personnel and property)

Mishap Probability Sub-Category Matrix:

A (likely to occur immediately)
B (probably will occur in time)
C (may occur in time)
D (unlikely to occur)
 
Risk Assessment Code Matrix:   MISHAP PROBABILITY RATING
  HAZARD   A B     C     D
1 Critical                       SEVERITY
2 Serious              I    1 1 2     4
3 Moderate         II   1 2 3     4
4 Minor   III   2 3 4     5
5 Negligible        IV   3 4 5     5

Step 3.  Risk Decisions:

a. Have risks been prioritized and internal controls selected  
     to reduce process risks?   ( x ) (  ) (  )

b. Do selected internal controls provide benefits that
 outweigh risks?   ( x ) (  ) (  )

c. If risk outweighs benefit, does the process warrant reporting
    to higher authority as a material weakness?  Discuss issues
    on page 2.   (  )  ( x ) (  )

Step 4.  Internal Control Implementation (more than one type internal           control may apply):

a. Have “Engineering Controls” been implemented that reduce
     risks by design, material selection, or substitution when
     technically or economically feasible?   ( x ) (  ) (  )

b. Have “Administrative Controls” been implemented that       reduce risks through specific administrative actions,       such as:


OPERATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT (ORM) ASSESSMENT – cont’d


  Yes
(1) providing suitable warnings, markings, placards, signs,   No N/A
    and notices?  

(2) establishing written policies, programs, instructions,   ( x ) (  ) (  )
    and standard operating procedures?  

(3) training personnel to recognize hazards and take   ( x ) (  ) (  )
    appropriate precautionary measures?  

(4) limiting the exposure to a hazard (either by reducing      the number of personnel/assets or the length of time   ( x ) (  ) (  )
    they are exposed)?  
     
c. Is there use of “Personal Protective Equipment” (serves as a      barrier between personnel and a hazard and should be used   ( x ) (  ) (  )
    when other controls do not reduce the hazard to an acceptable  
    level)? ( x )

Step 5.  Supervision.  Is there periodic supervisory oversight of   (  ) (  )
         internal controls for the work process? ( x ) (  ) (  )



ORM Assessment conducted by:  ____Brandon Espinoza_________________Date:____7/16/2014_____



ORM Assessment reviewed by:  _________________________________________________Date:______________
    (Dept Head)




ISSUES/COMMENTS ACTIONS (Include estimated completion dates)


Summary
Risk assessment and hazard identification are necessary to any operation and sUAS have their own set of unique risks and hazards associated with their use. Through the use of PHL/A, OHR&A, and ORM assessments, hazards can be systematically identified for all stages of operation. Much like product development, the stages of UAS operations each have their own unique risks and hazards. It is impossible for the mind to keep track of all possible risks and hazards, therefore utilizing tools such as these can help mitigate incidents from occurring by determining hazards before operations begin through brainstorming and experience.

References:
Barnhart, Richard K. Shappee, Eric Marshall, Douglas M. (2014). Introduction to Unmanned
Aircraft Systems (2011). CRC Press, London, GBR. 10/2011.
Department of Defense (2014). MIL-STD-882E – System Safety (2012). Retrieved from:
http://www.system-safety.org/Documents/MIL-STD-882E.pdf
U.S. Air Force Air University (2014). Operational Risk Management (ORM) Assessment
(OPNAVIINST 3500.39 FIVE-STEP PROCESS) Retrieved from: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/navy/orm_assessment.pdf

Friday, July 11, 2014

Automation

WOW! What an interesting study on automation over the past few days. Many discussions between peers and a lot of interesting ideas that were truly thought provoking. The idea that automated killer UAS could spring up really puts advancements in the field into focus and makes you ask the question, "where is this heading?". Personally the speech by Daniel Suarez was just a story. As a science fiction writer he knows how to weave a tale, but some of his points were legitimate and I am certain we will a few key points of his come to light.
One thing is for sure, automated systems are not going anywhere and are only improving. To that point I wrote on a automatic take off and landing system developed by Northrop Grumman. It is an interesting project they are working on and it is nearing completion. Here is what I found:

Automatic Takeoff and Landing
Abstract
Automatic takeoff and landings (ATOL) are a great asset to UAS and manned aircraft as they have to potential to reduce accident rates and save valuable equipment. While many systems are still in research and development, and much of the information pertaining to ATOL has not been released to the general public, there is one system of note that has been ground-breaking. The ATOL system developed by Northrop Grumman is being used in both the X-47B unmanned system, as well as F/A-18 hornet.
Analysis
The U.S. Navy is using flight control software designed for the X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) Carrier Demonstration Program. The purpose of the program which was awarded to Northrop Grumman in 2007 was to produce autonomous aircraft that were to be used to demonstrate the first ever carrier-based launches and recoveries by “…low-observable relevant unmanned aircraft (Northrop Grumman, 2014).” The X-47B uses GPS rather than radar based guidance to execute the automated commands. The system does not rely on a remote pilot, it is given instructions and it executes them autonomously. The technology found in the X-47B is also being tested in F/A-18 Hornets. The aircraft has successfully landed by its self on the deck of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) using the X-47B flight control software (DefenseTech, 2011). It should be noted that there was no ground controller as is common in many UAS, rather the aircraft carriers air traffic control (ATC) sends a command to the system and the aircraft enters the landing pattern, “…and execute the landing all on its own; the same way a piloted jet would (DefenseTech, 2011). The aircraft not being piloted remotely actually uses flight rules placed by ATC to execute landing instructions. The automated system uses GPS data transmitted over Rockwell Collins’ Tectical Targeting Network Technology. The GPS system allows for 360-degree coverage around the ship, a vast improvement over older radar based automatic systems which had limited coverage around the stern of the carrier. Additionally, the GPS/Rockwell Collins system allows for multiple aircraft to be controlled at a time, while no exact numbers are given, it is stated by NAVAIR officials that the technology allows for more control over the radar based systems. The GPS system also allows for manual input in case there is a need to abort a landing, DefenseTech stated, “In the final phase of the approach, the LSO can even order the jet to wave off using his terminal that has been modified to communicate with an unmanned jet, according to NAVAIR officials.”
Summery
ATOL is a valuable asset to UAS and manned aircraft. The addition of this particular Northrop Grumman system, which is designed specifically with aircraft carrier landings in mind, will make the difficult task of carrier landing easier for both manned and unmanned aircraft. The cost savings, and more importantly the human factor benefits being developed will save lives and guide future technologies. This technology has been recognized by Popular Mechanics through their Breakthrough Innovator Award. The award recognizes positive innovations and Popular Mechanics said it selected the X-47B because it “…is the first UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) to land safely on the deck of an aircraft carrier without a human pilot. Its technology may lead to more accurate autopilot systems in private and commercial aircraft, as well as safer self-driving cars.”
ATOL is yet another step in making UAS safe, it is a positive step toward proving safety and reliability in UAS to the defense and private sectors and should help usher in their eventual implementation into the national airspace system.

References:
Reed, John (2014). Navy One Step Closer To UAV Carrier Ops (2011). DEFENSETECH, July
7, 2011. Retrieved from: http://defensetech.org/2011/07/07/navy-one-step-closer-to-uav-carrier-ops/
Northrop Grumman Corporation (2014). Capabilities – X-47B UCAS (2014). Retrieved from:
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/X47BUCAS/Pages/default.aspx
Northrop Grumman Corporation (2014). Northrop Grumman, U.S. Navy Catapult X-47B From
Carrier Into History Books (2013). Media Resources News releases, May 14, 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.globenewswire.com/newsarchive/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=10032846

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Shift Work Disorder

This week was interesting for sure. I got to put into practice research done on Sleep Work Disorder (SWD). In a mock exercise I used information I gathered from very interesting publications on the disorder and applied it to a imaginary MQ-1 Predator crew suffering from fatigue due to shift work. The following is my analysis.

Shift Work Schedule
-Brandon Espinoza

Abstract

While no definite work schedule has been established, partially due to the varying nature of numerous industries and workers individual internal factors, studies have shown there are certain measures that can be made to decrease the negative effects of fatigue, stress, and general well-being in shift workers. This analysis looks at a MQ-1B Medium Altitude, Long Endurance (MALE) UAS squadron and uses a research based schedule to aid in reducing the growing number of fatigue related complaints by crews.
Scheduling Factors
      While considerations for development were being made certain factors were implemented and key research done by Dr. Michael J. Thorpy concerning viable solutions to mitigate shift work disorder (SWD) were incorporated into the schedule. Dr. Thorpy states, “Additional studies evaluating the effects of >4 consecutive night shifts…confirm the risk for decreased cognitive performance and increased sever ES. The observed marked increase in the risk for incidents during working hours suggests that working more than 4 consecutive 12-hour night shifts should be avoided (Thorpy, 2010).” It is by this suggestion that the three day on – one day off schedule was derived. This should place the crew well under the suggested work/rest hours as their shifts are under 12 hours. In a study conducted by the Naval Postgraduate School it was found during a re-visitation of work-related fatigue that, “…the number of consecutive days off was increased from two to three in order to provide greater opportunity for recovery sleep. However, study results differed markedly from this expectation. Mean fatigue scores were unchanged compared to one year before with the exception of the CIS-CON (checklist individual strength concentration subscale) scale, a measure of mental fatigue, for which scores were significantly higher compared to the prior year.” Thus in the MQ-1B schedule there has been an attempt to implement more frequent rest periods rather than longer ones which studies have shown offer no aid in fatigue reduction.
SWD Aids
  Other factors should be considered beyond scheduling changes as the severity of SWD is manifesting itself in the MQ-1B crew and causing performance issues. According to Dr. Thorpy, “Several nonpharmacologic interventions are available for the treatment of SWD, such as the improvement of sleep hygiene, exercise, and timed exposure to light.” Additionally he identifies, “Two pharmacologic agents – modafinil and its R-enantiomer armodafinil – have been evaluated specifically in patients with excessive sleepiness (ES) associated with SWD and are approved as wakefulness-promoting agents for this indication by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (Thorpy, 2010).” While the agents are not recommended to this squadron at this time, the use of the agents should be noted as a viable option should chronic fatigue related complaints continue after revised schedule implementation. As for the nonpharmacologic interventions, it is suggested to the MQ-1B crew that they make use of exercise and light-therapies both during breaks and off-duty days. These aids will be especially useful for crews operating at night, and special emphasis should be placed on their use to these crews.

Recommendations

Recommended measures are summarized and are as follows:
- Move to a three day on, one day off schedule
- Take advantage of nonpharmacologic interventions – especially for night shift crews
- If needed, pharmacologic options should be evaluated and implemented by a case by case individual basis
- Emphasis to crews the importance of quality sleep of quantity – exercise and sleep hygiene will aid in this
- Educate crew members on fatigue and stress, create an organizational climate supporting safe work and        rest schedules

References:
Tvaryanas, A. Platte, W. Swigart, C. Colebank, J. Miller, N. (2014). A Resurvey of Shift
Work-Related Fatigue in MQ-1 Predator Unmanned Aircraft System Crewmembers (2008). Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California. Retrieved from: file:///C:/Users/Doctor/Downloads/ADA477976.pdf
Thorpy, M. (2014). Managing the patient with shift-work disorder (2010). Supplement to
The Journal of Family Practice. January 2010 / Vol 59, No 1. Retrieved from: http://media.mycme.com/documents/29/culpepper_2010_swd_suppl_70

Friday, June 27, 2014

Beyond Line of Sight


This week was a look into beyond line of sight technologies, or BLOS. It was quite difficult to obtain information in this area due to a simple fact: BLOS is primarily a military grade technology, so private sector and civilian information on the technologies is hard to come by.
That being said, the following information and analysis relates what I was able to find:
Beyond Line of Sight
Abstract
As of now, beyond line of sight (BLOS) capabilities are typically found in the defense industry. However, as we near development of NextGen and the systems and products that will integrate unmanned aerial systems (UAS) into the national air space (NAS), it is possible more robust UAS technologies such as beyond line of sight capabilities will be introduced to the private sector. Unmanned aerial systems like the Global Hawk and Predator utilize long range operations for surveillance and boarder protection using satellite based data exchange.
Analysis
 Ku Band is used for beyond line of sight operations for multiple UASs including the Global Hawk, Predator, and their derivatives which utilize the BLOS C2 system which relies on a 11.7-12.7 GHz download and 14-14.5 satellite data uplink (Valavanis, Oh, & Piegl, 2008). The primary concern with BLOS satellite control links is latency, thus the need for autopilot operations in which the pilot, “…remains out of the C2 Loop but monitors the flight operations for unusual situations.” (Valavanis, Oh, & Piegl, 2008). In the case of the Global Hawk, the UAS ground control station (GCS) segment consists of a launch and recovery element (LRE) and a mission control element (MCE) (Northrop Grumman, 2014). The RD-2B LRE and the RD-2A MCE work together to provide both line of sight (LOS) and BLOS operations. The system requires operators to switch from LRE to MCE for BLOS operation. This creates a potential issue due to human factors being introduced. If the pilot/operator do not “catch” the aircraft as it leaves LOS then loss link may occur, or communication or procedures concerning operating status is not conveyed from one pilot-operator to another as in the Predator B accident with the Border Patrol. Additionally, if the aircraft is to be on mission for extended periods of time multiple pilots will switch control in shifts, introducing potential information exchange issues. Once operating BLOS the aircrafts autopilot GUI executes the loaded flight plan, operators/pilots can alter the flight paths if necessary if, for example, airspace is crowded or mission parameters change.
Conclusion
The downside to BLOS operations as previously stated is latency, which can cause situational awareness issues, a large concern when discussing UAS integration into national air space (NAS). Although new advancements are being made to combat situational awareness issues, latency is why - at this time - I believe LOS operations are the only safe use of UAS in NAS. However, as technology progresses and BLOS and situational awareness in UAS improves, the commercial usage of BLOS UAS operations will increase and many missions – from large farm crop dusting, to commercial goods delivery to difficult geographical locations (like Coke delivering soda to skyscraper workers). I know in many parts of the world there are hard to reach locations with humanitarian needs, i.e. medicine and food, however either dangerous terrain - which makes for virtually impassable roads, or militant forces - making ground travel too dangerous, makes UAS BLOS operations a viable answer. The downside is in the cost however, as many commercial and private uses do not warrant the investment. I can see where organizations could perhaps pull resources and gain positive publicity by helping fund UAS while aiding those in need at the same time by simply investing in UAS with BLOS capabilities, but until such technologies are brought down into the consumer or industrial price brackets UAS with BLOS capabilities will be scarce in the NAS. That being said, an interest from the private sector could spur development and in turn reduce production costs of BLOS capable UAS.

References:
Kimon P. Valavanis, Paul Y. Oh, Les A. Piegl (2014). Unmanned Aircraft Systems (2008).
International Symposium on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, UAV’08.
Northrop Grumman (2014). RQ-4 Global Hawk High-Altitude, Long-Endurance Unmanned
Aerial Reconnaissance System Facts. Retrieved from: http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/RQ4Block20GlobalHawk/Documents/HALE_Factsheet.pdf

Friday, June 20, 2014

UAS in the NAS

This week I did research into the world of NextGen, and how it relates to UAS and human factors. This was an interesting and relevant topic in that people are concerned over just how exactly people hope to integrate UAS into domestic commercial use. The following was my viewpoint on these topics:

UAS Integration in the NAS
Abstract
The goal of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) is to update current systems and processes that govern safety both in air and on the ground. Through multiple advancements the NextGen system seeks to utilize satellite based technologies to move air travel into the future, letting aircraft have better situational awareness through precision GPS and digital instrumentation, and both aircraft and air traffic control better situational awareness once on the ground. NextGen will also offer sharing of weather data and airspace conditions. All this adds up to increased safety for more flights, and cost savings over time. 
Analysis
The NextGen system fits in well with unmanned aerial systems (UAS). The technology used in both will work hand in hand, as current UAS utilize GPS as a navigating system, and through such developments as MITREs Intelligent Analyzer the ability to mitigate lost link issues and maintain safe airspace for both UAS and manned aircraft is possible (MITRE, 2012). The commercial possibilities are numerous, further deepening the need for nationwide FAA approval. The general public is somewhat leery of UAS due to select media coverage, this coupled with the mismatch in manned aircraft system technology has led to restrictions and regulations hindering UAS usage and arguably further development. Currently UAS are operated within national airspace only under strict guidelines and FAA approval. This comes from current compatibility issues with UAS systems and ground control systems, which, due to the technological differences it is often unsafe to fly UAS in national airspace. However, as NextGen becomes implemented, the ability to integrate the two systems is now becoming possible. Research being conducted by a MITRE-FAA partnership seeks to share real time flight information streaming from a UAS with air traffic control systems. This data link will integrate UAS with manned aircraft and create a complete airspace picture. 
The advancements and integration of both UAS and NextGen pose challenges. Research is still being conducted to find the best solution, and determine what human factor issues will arise from such a system. It is a major concern that the introduction of more incoming information will produce complications with pilot fatigue and awareness factors. The technology may be of great benefit, but there is a potential learning curve where mistakes could be made. In the FAA’s Human Factors Research Status Report it is stated that: “Achieving NextGen will require advanced concepts and technologies, along with higher levels of automation – all of which will result in changes to roles and responsibilities for pilots and air traffic controllers. These transitions, in combination with increased interaction with automation, can lead to unwanted side effects, such as increased errors, loss of situational awareness, or mode confusion.” (FAA, 2012). It can be compared to cell phone use or using navigation systems while driving in my opinion, the increased automation will require more incoming data to be looked at and analyzed, and this will create moments where error may occur just as in a driving scenario.
Conclusion
The FAA, NASA, MITRE, and countless individuals are all working together to make NextGen as safe as possible while meeting their goal of advancing aviation. Humans are part of every step in NextGen, from design - to use, and as such every effort is being made to reduce risks while implementing. The added challenge of UAS integration may create issues, but they are being worked through, and once complete I believe we will see an increase in UAS in national airspace and greater public acceptance as they become more commonplace.
References:
Federal Aviation Administration (2014). NextGen Implementation (2013). Retrieved from:
http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/implementation/
MITRE Corporation (2014). Integrating UAS into NextGen Systems (2011). Retrieved from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hBcugTsWRQ
MITRE (2014). Keeping Track of Unmanned Aircraft by Overcoming Lost Links (2011). Retrieved from:
http://www.mitre.org/publications/project-stories/keeping-track-of-unmanned-aircraft-by-overcoming-lost-links
Federal Aviation Administration (2014). Next Generation Air Transportation System Human
Factors Research Status Report (2012). Retrieved from:
http://www.jpdo.gov/library/2012_Human_Factors_Research_Status_v2.0.pdf

Friday, June 13, 2014

UAS Ground Control Station

This week was an interesting dive into the world of Ground Control Stations (GCS) I did a bit of research and found a site listing some popular GCSs, while reading through them I stumbled on Raytheon Company's Common Ground Control Station, and it really sparked my interest. Now I know the unit has been out for awhile but developments are still apparently being made and the product tweaked. Below is my quick review and analysis of the CGCS:

Ground control stations (GCS) are constantly being evolved. As technology and methodology in the UAS field progresses, the capabilities are being tested and boundaries governing what a system can or can’t do are being pushed. To that end the Raytheon Company has created a unique GCS known as the Common Ground Control System (CGCS) that leverages the hand-eye coordination and learning curves found in video game development to build a GCS that is more intuitive and that lessens the time needed in training. The intent is to adhere to the NATO STANAG 4586 standard and create a "universal" GCS.
Through its use of a first person perspective, the CGCS, "...immerses the pilots or the operators in the system and helps them project their minds into the battle space. They actually feel like they are riding on the UAV.” according to Mark Bigham of Raytheon Intelligence and Information Systems (Defense Industry Daily, 2014). Raytheon's CGCS allows use of multiple UAV types, and aims to reduce losses and errors through its integrated system with customizable configurations and human factor ergonomic considerations such as pilot/operators being able to stand or sit and multi-function control (Raytheon Company, 2014).
Running common core UAS U2 software, the CGCS is the sole system providing U.S. government administration rights to the source code and interfaces. According to Raytheon Company, "The government has the source code to the UAS framework, owns the open, documented interfaces and makes them readily available for vendors to adapt and compete to provide the latest innovative ideas and applications." (Raytheon, 2014). According to the company, the CGCS provides three benefits:
-      - Flexibility to scale the ground station from large headquarters implementations all the way down to handheld‑phone‑size controllers.
-       -Allows unmanned systems management functions and information to be distributed across the total enterprise.
-       -Open, common, nonproprietary architecture minimizes life‑cycle costs, simplifies configuration management, and reduces training time and costs.
It is in these all these claims that certain human factors question can arise. A primary factor behind the CGCS is the cockpit view for ground pilots. While this is certainly an improvement, the issues in lens angle still exist and can create issues in airspace situational awareness. Certainly this is found in manned flight as well, but in the case of manned flight it is limited to peripheral vision - for the most part. In UASs there is currently limited field of view, leaving operators to rely on GPS locating to try and determine proximity to other aircraft, a not always successful approach. To combat this, the CGCS is certainly heading in the right direction, which is, increasing the display area as shown on their website where operators use 3 monitors to broaden their viewpoint.
Secondly, the CGCS claims to reduce manpower requirements by 20% (Defense Update, 2014). But as necessary crew shrinks, the cognitive load on pilot/operators increase with more information coming their way, and more responsibility being placed on them. Again, manned pilots undergo many sensory inputs at a time, however they are often split between the HUD/equipment, and their own sensory perceptions. In the case of the UAS pilot there is no such benefit of being "there" in the aircraft to use natural occurring inputs to aid in decisions. They are left to only digital inputs presented to them on screen. One technique to aid in the sensory overload of operators, is to keep operating times to a minimum, meaning more pilot scheduling turnaround time. Working in short "bursts" alternating shifts can keep minds fresh and focused on all the information being streamed their way. Additionally, I believe that adding more than visual cues would help in operations. Incorporating sensors linked to gyro outputs in equipment much like a simulator, one could give the ground pilots more of the sensation a traditional manned pilot would feel, and increase focus as the interface then becomes more "real". This approach is used when designing equipment, the goal of which is to keep the user focused and fend off boredom and keep thoughts from drifting from the task at hand.
            The CGCS is a revolutionary design that has caught the attention of the UAS community and government agencies. The developments the system introduces will help mitigate certain human factor issues presently found in traditional proprietary GCSs. The unique training methods and intuitive controls and interface, make the CGCS a candidate for more user-friendly GCSs. While there are still factors to be aware of, the CGCS is not a solve-all solution, however, the technology and capabilities it introduces will benefit the operators looking to improve human-machine interface and better conduct UAS operations.





References:
Raytheon Company (2014). Common Ground Control System (CGCS) (2014). Retrieved from:
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/cgcs/

Defense Industry Daily (2014). It’s Better to Share: Breaking Down UAV GCS Barriers (2011).
Retrieved from: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uav-ground-control-solutions-06175/

Defense Update Magazine (2014). Raytheon Offers More Efficient Ground Control for the

Predator. Retrieved from: http://defense-update.com/products/c/cgcs.html#more