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.