Research Assignment: Operational Risk Management
Gabriel P. Riccio
ASCI
638 Human Factors in Unmanned Systems
Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University-Worldwide
23
February 2018
Operational Risk Management
Introduction
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been
working diligently over the past few years in an effort to efficiently
integrate small Unmanned Aerial Systems (sUAS) into our country’s National Airspace
System (NAS). According to the FAA, they
expect to see sUAS used in agricultural applications, research and development
projects, academic uses, inspections of bridges, power lines, pipelines and
antennas, reach and rescue operations, and environmental and wildlife
monitoring (United States. Federal Aviation
Administration [U.S. FAA], 2016). With
the growth of UAS operations, the FAA has taken notice of the unique risks
associated with their operations; two areas of concern are “see and avoid”
operations as well as the potential for “loss of positive control (U.S. FAA,
2016). Therefore, the FAA expects
operators of sUAS perform a preflight assessment which considers methods to
mitigate risk associated with unmanned flight operations (Wackwitz &
Boedecker, 2015). An Operational Risk
Management (ORM) assessment quantifies risks for the purpose of mitigation and
control (Wackwitz & Boedecker, 2015).
The development of an ORM assessment includes a Preliminary Hazard List
(PHL), Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA), and Operational Hazard Review and
Analysis (OHR&A) (Safety Assessments, 2011).
sUAS Agricultural Crop Spraying
As
stated previously the FAA is expecting and it has come to be true in all cases
that sUAS are being used across a variety of applications; one of which is for
the agricultural spraying of crops. The
small unmanned octocopter Agras MG-1 built
by DJI is designed to precisely apply liquid pesticides, fertilizers, and
herbicides (DJI, 2018). This sUAS can
spray up to 22 pounds of payload and spray seven to ten acres per hour (DJI,
2018). The platform utilizes an
intelligent spraying system that regulates payload application so as to reduce
over-spraying thus protecting the environment while cutting operating costs
(DJI, 2018). The Agras MG-1 is a high-tech state of the art platform but it is
imperative the commercial operator prior to flight develop an ORM assessment
tool for the purpose of managing the safety of operations and aid in the
“go/no-go decision” making process (Safety Assessments, 2011).
ORM Assessment Tool
The
first step in developing an ORM assessment tool is the development of a
PHL. The purpose of the PHL is to
identify the initial safety issues associated with operations (Safety
Assessments, 2011). Once the risks have
been identified, they need to be analyzed for the sole purpose of developing
strategies to mitigate that particular risk/hazard (Safety Assessments, 2011). In the development of the PHL; probability, severity,
and risk are defined per “MIL-STD-882D/E Department of Defense Standard
Practice System Safety” dated 11 May 2012.
See Tables 1, 2, and 3 below. See Table 4 for completed PHL/A table.
Table 1
DOD
severity categories.
Note: Reprinted from Standard practice for system
safety (MIL-STD-882E), U.S. DOD,
2012.
Table
2
DOD probability
levels.
Note: Reprinted from Standard practice for system
safety (MIL-STD-882E), U.S. DOD, 2012.
Table
3
DOD risk level matrix.
Note: Reprinted from Standard practice for system
safety (MIL-STD-882E), U.S. DOD,
2012.
Table 4
PHL and PHA assessment.
|
Preliminary Hazard List/Analysis
|
||||||||
|
Track#
|
Operational Stage
|
Hazard
|
Probability
|
Severity
|
RL
|
Mitigating Actions
|
RRL
|
Notes
|
|
001
|
Planning
|
Weather
|
Frequent
|
Marginal
|
Serious
|
Obtain a weather briefing
|
LOW
|
Continue to monitor
|
|
002
|
Planning
|
Airspace Violation
|
Improbable
|
Marginal
|
Medium
|
Operate IAW FAA/COA
|
LOW
|
Review airspace rules
|
|
003
|
Planning
|
Human Factors
|
Occasional
|
Marginal
|
Medium
|
Self-evaluate
|
LOW
|
Fatigue, Stress
|
|
004
|
Staging
|
Improper Pre-flight
|
Improbable
|
Marginal
|
Medium
|
Pre-flight IAW operators manual
|
LOW
|
|
|
005
|
Launch
|
Obstacles
|
Frequent
|
Marginal
|
Serious
|
Choose alternate launch
location
|
LOW
|
Check for towers, wires, tree,
etc.
|
|
006
|
Flight
|
Loss of Control
|
Remote
|
Marginal
|
Medium
|
Follow operating procedures
|
LOW
|
Check antennas
|
|
007
|
Fight
|
Loss of visual sight
|
Remote
|
Critical
|
Medium
|
Execute Lost Link Procedures
|
LOW
|
Use observer
|
|
008
|
Flight
|
Collision with other aircraft
|
Improbable
|
Critical
|
Medium
|
Operate IAW FAA/COA
|
LOW
|
|
|
009
|
Flight
|
Spray Drift
|
Remote
|
Marginal
|
Medium
|
Weather, winds, equipment
|
LOW
|
Update winds
|
|
010
|
Flight
|
Spray Off Target Damage
|
Improbable
|
Marginal
|
Medium
|
Pre-flight, Monitor Flight
|
LOW
|
|
|
011
|
Recovery
|
Improper Post-Flight
|
Improbable
|
Negligible
|
LOW
|
Post-Flight IAW operators
manual
|
LOW
|
|
|
RL (Risk Level), RRL (Residual
Risk Level)
|
||||||||
The third step is to perform an
OHR&A. The OHR&A is used to
evaluate the hazards that were not foreseen during operations from beginning to
end; additionally, the OHR&A will validate the PHL and the PHA (Safety
Assessments, 2011). See Table 5 below.
Table 5
OHR&A tool.
|
Operational Hazard Review & Analysis (OHR&A)
|
||||||||
|
Track#
|
Operational Stage
|
Action Review
|
Probability
|
Severity
|
RL
|
Mitigating Actions
|
RRL
|
Notes
|
|
001
|
Planning
|
Not Adequate
|
Occasional
|
Marginal
|
Medium
|
Update weather during flight
operations
|
LOW
|
Constantly monitor
|
|
002
|
Planning
|
Adequate
|
Improbable
|
Marginal
|
Medium
|
Operate IAW FAA/COA
|
LOW
|
|
|
003
|
Planning
|
Not Adequate
|
Occasional
|
Marginal
|
Medium
|
Ensure operator is fully
pre-pared and trained
|
LOW
|
USE FAA IMSAFE acronym
|
|
004
|
Staging
|
Adequate
|
Improbable
|
Marginal
|
Medium
|
Pre-flight IAW operators manual
|
LOW
|
|
|
005
|
Launch
|
Adequate
|
Frequent
|
Marginal
|
Serious
|
Choose alternated launch
location
|
LOW
|
|
|
006
|
Flight
|
Adequate
|
Remote
|
Marginal
|
Medium
|
Follow operating procedures
|
LOW
|
|
|
007
|
Flight
|
Not Adequate
|
Occasional
|
Critical
|
Serious
|
Additional operator training
|
LOW
|
Strategically position
observers
|
|
008
|
Flight
|
Adequate
|
Improbable
|
Critical
|
Medium
|
Operate IAWS FA/COA
|
LOW
|
|
|
009
|
Flight
|
Not Adequate
|
Remote
|
Marginal
|
Medium
|
Monitor Winds
|
LOW
|
Weather updates
|
|
010
|
Flight
|
Adequate
|
Improbable
|
Marginal
|
Medium
|
Pre-flight, Monitor Flight
|
Low
|
|
|
011
|
Recovery
|
Adequate
|
Improbable
|
Negligible
|
Low
|
Post-Flight IAW operators
manual
|
LOW
|
|
|
RL (Risk Level), RRL (Residual
Risk Level)
|
||||||||
The
last step is the development of the ORM assessment tool. The tool should be filled out prior to every
flight and briefed to all mission participants (Safety Assessments, 2011). ORM
factors should include the weather, human factors (crew rest, mission timeline),
airspace, and any items on the PHL/A that may change for that particular
mission (Safety Assessments, 2011). See Table 6 below.
Table 6
ORM assessment tool.
|
ORM Assessment Tool
DJI Agras MG-1
Spraying Operations
|
||||
|
Operational Factors
|
Risk Factor 1
|
Risk Factor 2
|
Risk Factor 3
|
Risk Factor 4
|
|
System Hardware/Software
changes
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
Battery Charge
|
100%
|
100% - 75%
|
75% - 50%
|
< 50% NF
|
|
Airspace Operations
|
Uncontrolled
|
|
Controlled
|
|
|
Pilot’s Last Flight
|
< 30 days
|
30 - 60 days
|
60 - 90 days
|
> 90 days
|
|
Visibility
|
> 5 miles
|
5 - 3 miles
|
3 - 1 mile
|
< 1 mile NF
|
|
Ceiling AGL
|
> 5,000’
|
5,000 – 3,000’
|
3,000’ – 1,000’
|
<1,000’
|
|
Surface Winds
|
Calm
|
0-10 Knots
|
10-15 Knots
|
> 15 Knots NF
|
|
Crew Rest
|
> 12 hours
|
12 - 8 hours
|
8 – 6 hours
|
< 6 hours NF
|
|
Previously Sprayed Current
Location
|
< 30 days
|
30 - 60 days
|
60 - 90 days
|
> 90 days
|
|
Obstacles >150’
|
> 100 yards
|
100 – 75 yards
|
50 – 75 yards
|
< 50 yards
|
|
Note: NF (No Flight is Permitted)
|
||||
|
Risk Level
|
TOTAL
|
|
||
|
< 6 is LOW
|
6 – 10 is Medium
|
> 10 is High
|
||
References
DJI.
(2018). AGRAS MG-1. Retrieved from https://www.dji.com/mg-1
Safety Assessments. (2011). In
R. K. Barnhart, S. B. Hottman, D. M. Marshall, & E.
Shappee (Eds.), Introduction to unmanned aircraft systems
(pp. 123-135). Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/lib/erau/reader.action?docID=1449438&query=
United States. Department of Defense. (2012). Standard
practice for system safety (MIL-STD-882E). Retrieved from website:
https://www.system-safety.org/Documents/MIL-STD-882E.pdf
United States. Federal Aviation
Administration. (2016). Operation and certification of small unmanned
aircraft systems (RIN 2120–AJ60). Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/RIN_2120-AJ60_Clean_Signed.pdf
Wackwitz, K.,
& Boedecker, H. (2015, November). Safety risk assessment for UAV
operation. Retrieved from
http://miningquiz.com/pdf/Drone_Safety/Safety-Risk-Assessment-for-UAV-Operation-Rev.-1.1.compressed.pdf
