9.4 The Future of the UAS

One does not have to search long to find articles on the future integration of unmanned passenger aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS). The article titled “Pilotless Planes Could be Possible by 2025” by R. Ahluwalia (2017) discusses technologies currently being developed that could take pilots out of the cockpit of passenger airliners. The article cites the two major advantages of removing pilots are a significant savings in the “cost of employing pilots” and increased flight safety; since there will be no pilot error (Ahluwalia, 2017). The article bases its conclusion on research conducted by UBS; the investment bank. 

The UBS 53 page research paper states that by the year 2025 it is technology feasible that commercial air traffic could be unmanned (Castle et al., 2017). This idea works well for cargo carrying aircraft but maybe not so much for passenger airliners. According to a survey conducted by UBS, 54% of 8,000 survey respondents reported they will not fly on an unmanned aircraft (Ahluwalia, 2017). To overcome the fears of flying on board an aircraft without a pilot the approach may need to be incremental. The first step would be to reduce the requirement from two pilots to one pilot operations (Castle et al., 2017). 

Boeing is currently studying the potential for replacing pilots with artificial intelligence (Gates, 2017). Boeing believes they can produce unmanned autonomous aircraft with the same level of safety currently realized by manned airliners but there are still many challenges that need to be overcome (Gates, 2017). When an aircraft experiences an unexpected emergency, pilots often have to immediately analyze the situation and make a decision of action; it is impossible to pre-program every scenario. Therefore, it is essential that the onboard artificial intelligence is capable to independently react as a pilot would (Gates, 2017). 

Current Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) do not support the use or integration of unmanned commercial airlines in the National Airspace System (NAS). So even if unmanned airliner technologies prove to be a realistic scenario by 2025, the FAA must approve their operations which includes all phases of flight and ground operations. According to the USB research report: 

“ the full FAA registration of a commercial plane would need to cover a number of areas around the current design certification process, such as aircraft certification software, automated conformity inspection, original design approval, technical standards, and safety and product certification, which, we believe, would need to be expanded on to allow for pilotless planes” (Castle et al., 2017, p.26). 

Additional points of concern revolve around security, health and safety, and resistance from the pilot’s themselves and their union (Castel, et al., 2017). What needs to be understood is that this is coming. It will be an incremental approach and start with cargo aircraft, and will most likely begin with reducing the cockpit to one pilot with a robotic co-pilot onboard or another pilot monitoring the flight from a Ground Control Station (GCS) who has the ability to remotely control the platform if needed. Over time FAA regulations will have to evolve to support these type of operations. 

References

Ahluwalia, R. (2017, August 10). Pilotless planes could be here within 10 years. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/pilotless-plane-remote-controlled-flight-drone-aircraft-2025-aviation-technology-a7884911.html 

Castle, J., Fornaro, C., Genovesi, D., Lin, E., Strauss, D., Wadewitz, T., & Edridge, D. (2017). Flying solo - how far are we down the path towards pilotless planes. Retrieved from http://nzz-files-prod.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/2017/8/7/93872795-5ab9-4f94-bb3a-f6ed38c6b886.pdf 

Gates, D. (2017, June 8). Boeing studies planes without pilots, plans experiments next year. The Seattle Times. Retrieved from https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-studies-planes-without-pilots-plans-experiments-next-year/

5.3 Blog: UAS Use

The article published in 2017 titled “The Influence of Drone Monitoring on Crop Health and Harvest Size” by M. Reinecke & T. Prinsloo explores the benefits of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) in agricultural applications. UAS can effectively outperform humans using traditional methods to monitor the status of crops (Reinecke & Prinsloo, 2017). Most farmers just don’t have the resources to actively monitor all farming activities and hiring more qualified and competent workers or buying additional farming machinery is not a practical solution (Reinecke & Prinsloo, 2017). UAS can economically fill that gap through aerial mapping and the monitoring of plant health such as chlorophyll levels, temperature, and leaf thickness (Reinecke & Prinsloo, 2017). Additionally, the same UAS to monitor crop health can be used to monitor livestock and gather data on crop damage as a result of theft (Reinecke & Prinsloo, 2017). The three overall benefits of agricultural UAS are:

·         Aerial mapping and photography is substantially cheaper than manned helicopters or small airplanes.

·         UAS are very economical to purchase and maintain as compared to buying other farm machinery to accomplish the same tasks.

·         UAS are small, maneuverable, man portable and can be outfitted with a variety of payloads and sensors based on application of use (Reinecke & Prinsloo, 2017).

The article concluded that most if not all farmers have realized the positive benefits of UAS in agricultural applications. UAS are a viable, efficient, effective, and sound economic solution to alternative methods (Reinecke & Prinsloo, 2017). Within the past year several supporting articles have been published on UAS usage in agriculture. The article “Drone Use in Agriculture Expected to Grow Quickly” by L Hawkes (2017) discusses the practicality and versatility of UAS applications for farms and ranches. UAS can help farmers monitor the effectiveness of different irrigation strategies, provide data to evaluate the best time to reseed fields, and help plan seed planting patterns based on 3-D soil analysis maps (Hawkes, 2017).  L. Hawkes also discusses the major advantage of using UAS for crop spraying.  UAS outfitted with distance measuring equipment-ultrasonic echoing and lasers can accurately apply the correct amount of spray and spray five times faster than traditional farm machinery (Hawkes, 2017). Previously, farmers had to do all of this data gathering by hand and would often have to send soil samples offsite for evaluation. If farmers are not able to make the initial investment in a UAS outfitted with agricultural applications they can contract a UAS company such as Deveron UAS Corporation to collect the data and perform the analysis (Proactive investors: Deveron UAS's drones helping agricultural efficiency to reach new heights, 2017).

References

Hawkes, L. (2017, March 31). Drone use in agriculture expected to grow quickly. Business Insights: Essentials. Retrieved from http://bi.galegroup.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/essentials/article/GALE|A488722362?u=embry

Reinecke, M., & Prinsloo, T. (2017, July). The influence of drone monitoring on crop health and harvest size. Paper presented at the Paper presented at 2017 1st International Conference on Next Generation Computing Applications (NextComp), Mauritius, Mauritius. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/NEXTCOMP.2017.8016168

Proactive investors: Deveron UAS's drones helping agricultural efficiency to reach new heights (2017). . Chatham: Newstex. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1928424061?accountid=27203

2.3 Blog: Unmanned Aerial Systems

Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Lost Link Procedures

Unnamed Aerial Systems (UAS) that operate within the our National Airspace System (NAS) whether within Line of Sight (LOS) or Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) must be equipped with the appropriate technologies to ensure a safe recovery of the aerial platform in the event of a lost data link between the operator and aerial platform. In accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) Parts 91.3 and 91.13 General Operating & Flight Rules; the pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for that aircraft’s operations and must ensure that the aircraft is not operated so that it causes undue harm to endanger a person or their property (Federal Aviation Administration, 2017a). In other words, even when things go wrong, the pilot in command is still responsible and accountable.

In addition, Part 107 Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems found in the FARs discuss in detail the operating rules for a remote pilot in command; these rules do not alleviate the pilot in command from their general operating responsibilities as outlined in Part 91. In the event, a small UAS (sUAS) operator loses the data link with their platform they are still responsible. Fortunately, unless otherwise authorized sUAS are operated within line of sight and under very strict rules which lessen the potential for damage in the event of a loss link scenario. Most small commercial UAS operating under Part 107 incorporate contingency lost link features such as safe modes and return to home modes (Stansbury, Tanis, & Wilson, 2009). When the sUAS detects a lost link, the platform will autonomously fly to the point of launch or a pre-programmed waypoint; they are also capable of auto-landing; two examples are the Piccolo and Procerus Kestrel autopilots (Stansbury et al., 2009).

UAS that fly out of the general scope of Part 107 based on a waiver and/or authorization will have published procedures in the event of a lost link between the Ground Control Station (GCS) and the air vehicle. During the certificate of waiver or authorization process, lost link procedures are addressed but will vary on the type of UAS (Federal Aviation Administration, 2017b). Letters of Agreement (LOA) between Air Traffic Control (ATC) and the UAS proponent will ensure a lost link contingency plan is in place and that lost link procedures will not interfere with other NAS traffic (Federal Aviation Administration, 2017b).

UAS flown by the military also have published loss link procedures. A good example can found in U. S. Army Fort Knox Regulation 95-23 Unmanned Aircraft System Flight Rules (unclassified). This regulation specifies the following:

Small UAS

·         UAS will have a pre-programmed lost link location and altitude.

·         The UAS will orbit until the link can be re-established or the aircraft runs out of fuel.

Large UAS

·         UAS will proceed at mission altitude to a pre-programmed lost link location, then spiral to 4300 feet msl.

·         The UAS will orbit at 4300 feet msl and attempts will be made to re-establish the link (United States Army, Fort Knox, 2016).

Conclusions

Success in the event of a lost link scenario is dependent upon two parts; the first is establishing lost link procedures and the protocols to re-establish the link and the second is the UAS architecture. The air vehicle must be able to autonomously recognize when command, control, and communications (C3) are lost, then independently carry out those tasks to re-establish C3, or safely independently recover. It is important that operators fully understand their equipment. sUAS hobbyist need to know the capabilities of their air vehicles and what their autonomous actions are in the event of a lost link. UAS operating in controlled airspace must comply with their waivers and authorization and strictly adhere to that documentation.

 

In 2011 The MITRE Corporation started working with the FAA to develop a UAS onboard Intelligent Analyzer that will detect loss link situations and convert data relating to the platform’s position, altitude, airspeed, and next waypoint into a synthesized voice message that could be broadcast over emergency frequencies to ATC and other aircraft (Van Cleave, 2011). Future success depends on the FAA working with UAS manufactures to create technologies that will mitigate accidents or damage in the event of lost C3 such as the Intelligent Analyzer.

 

References

Federal Aviation Administration. (2017a). Federal aviation regulations: Part 91. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.

Federal Aviation Administration. (2017b). Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) (JO 7200.23A). Retrieved from the Federal Aviation Administration website: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/JO_7200.23A_Unmanned_Aircraft_Systems_(UAS).pdf

Stansbury, R. S., Tanis, W., & Wilson, T. A. (2009, April). A technology survey of emergency recovery and flight termination systems for UAS. Paper presented at AIAA InfoTech Aerospace Conference, Seattle, WA. Retrieved from http://commons.erau.edu/publication/73/

United States Army, Fort Knox. (2016). Fort Knox Regulation 95-23, Unmanned Aircraft System Flight Rules. Retrieved from Headquarters, Fort Knox website: http://www.knox.army.mil/garrison/dhr/asd/docs/regs/r95-23.pdf

Van Cleave, D. A. (2011, January). Keeping track of unmanned aircraft by overcoming "Lost Links". Retrieved from https://www.mitre.org/publications/project-stories/keeping-track-of-unmanned-aircraft-by-overcoming-lost-links