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.

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

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