Designing and Developing an Unmanned Aerospace System for the Federal Emergency Management Agency

Designing and Developing an Unmanned Aerospace System for the Federal Emergency Management Agency

Daniel J. Hall, Jr.

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

ASCI 530

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

December 8, 2013

Designing and Developing an Unmanned Aerospace System for the Federal Emergency Management Agency

This paper discusses the high and low level requirements for the design and development of an unmanned aerospace system (UAS) to be used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for aerial survey of metropolitan areas severely impacted by an earthquake.  The request for proposal from FEMA details the following assumptions and guidelines for the design and development of the UAS:

·         The survey area will be assumed to be completely inaccessible by ground vehicles due to the destruction of infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and tunnels.

·         The use of unmanned aerospace systems is desired due to potential environmental hazards such as nuclear, biological, and/or chemical contamination.

·         The UAS will be used for electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) aerial survey of the metropolitan areas from an altitude of approximately 1000 feet above ground level (AGL).

·         The UAS will provide image quality sufficient for first responders to identify survivors, assess access routes, survey the extent of damage, and identify hazardous areas such as fires.

·         The UAS must be easily transported to the site and operational within two hours after arriving at the operations site.

·         The UAS will be required to be airborne day or night over the survey area for up to eight hours in moderate weather conditions up to and including light rain less than 0.5 inches per hour, winds less 20 miles per hour, light turbulence, non-icing conditions, and no lightning within 20 miles.

·         The UAS must be delivered by July 1, 2015.

In response to the above request for proposal and guidelines the UAS developer decides to use a Rapid Application Development (RAD) process to design, develop, and test the UAS.  They set an 18 month schedule for this project beginning on January 1, 2014 and ending on June 30, 2015.  The RAD process is chosen because it “produces systems more quickly and to a business focus…at lower costs” (Department of Health and Human Services, 2008, p. 8).  The UAS developer then defines the following requirements list.

Transportability

·         Entire system (all elements) shall be transportable via two full sized pick-up trucks

·         The UAS will be transported in hardened cases in the bed of truck one

·         The ground control station (GCS) will be transported in hardened cases in the bed of truck two

·         Each hardened case will weigh less than 50 pounds (one-person lift)

·         Electrical generator for operations site power will be transported in the bed of truck one

·         Fuels for UAS and generator will be transported in bed of truck two

·         Truck one will tow the UAS launcher

·         Truck two will tow the UAS recovery system

Cost

·         Shall be less than $150,000 for the UAS

·         Shall be less than $100,000 for the command and control (C2) system including data links

·         Shall be less than $50,000 for the EO/IR sensor

·         Shall be less than $50,000 for the launcher

·         Shall be less than $50,000 for the recovery system

Air vehicle element

·         Shall be capable of flight up to 1000 feet altitude above ground level (AGL)

·         Shall be capable of sustained flight (at loiter speed) in excess of eight hours

·         Shall be launched via a pneumatic launcher

·         Shall be recovered via a net system

·         Shall be operational within two hours after arriving at operations site

·         Shall be capable of day or night manual operation

·         Shall be capable of operating in moderate weather conditions up to and including light rain less than 0.5 inches per hour, winds less 20 miles per hour, light turbulence, non-icing conditions, and no lightning within 20 miles

·         Shall provide capture of telemetry, including airspeed, altitude (AGL), magnetic heading, latitude/longitude position, and orientation (i.e., pitch, roll, and yaw)

·         Shall provide power to payload, telemetry sensors, and data-link

·         Shall deploy will enough fuel for 24 hours of flight

Command & Control (C2)

·         Shall be laptop based

·         Shall provide moving map capability

·         Shall command UAS routing via laptop point and click mode

·         Shall be secure against hacking

·         Shall be hardened against radio interference from external sources

·         Shall be capable of manual operation

·         Shall provide emergency recovery operation in the event of lost signal/contact

·         Shall visually depict telemetry of air vehicle element

·         Shall visually depict payload sensor views

·         Shall be powered via operations site generator

Payload

·         Shall be secure against hacking

·         Shall be hardened against radio interference from external sources

·         Shall be capable of color daytime video operation up to 1000 feet AGL

·         Shall be capable of infrared (IR) video operation up to 1000 feet AGL

·         Shall be interoperable with C2 and data-link

·         Shall display EO/IR imagery on laptop computers

·         Shall be powered by the UAS electrical system

·         Shall be capable of switching between EO and IR mode

·         Shall be capable of 4X zoom

Data-link (communications)

·         Shall be secure against hacking

·         Shall be hardened against radio interference from external sources

·         Shall be capable of line of sight communication up to twenty miles

·         Shall provide emergency recovery operation in the event of lost signal/contact

·         Shall be powered by the UAS electrical system

·         Shall provide two bi-directional links for command and control

·         Bi-directional command and control links shall also transmit telemetry data from UAS to GCS.

·         Shall provide one mono-directional downlink to send the video data from the payload to the GCS.

Support equipment

·         Launcher shall be towed with truck one

·         Launcher shall be operational within two hours after arriving at operations site

·         Launcher shall be powered via self-contained generator

·         Recovery system shall be towed with truck two

·         Recovery system shall be operational within two hours after arriving at operations site

·         Recovery system shall be manually operated (requires no electrical power)

After the UAS developer has captured all the high and low level requirements as outlined above a schedule must be developed in order to meet the 18 month timeline.  The schedule is broken down into three distinct periods of system development, system ground testing, and system flight testing.  Based upon previous experience the UAS developer allocates ten months for system development, four months for system ground testing, and 4 months for system flight testing.  Armed with a detailed requirements list and schedule the UAS developer fully expects to develop, test, and field a UAS capable of meeting FEMA’s needs.

References

Department of Health and Human Services (2008, March 27). Selecting a development approach. Retrieved from http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/CMS-Information-Technology/XLC/Downloads/SelectingDevelopmentApproach.pdf

Unmanned Aerospace Systems to the Rescue on Mount Rainier

 

Unmanned Aerospace Systems to the Rescue on Mount Rainier

 Daniel J. Hall, Jr.

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

ASCI 530

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

November 30, 2013

 

Unmanned Aerospace Systems to the Rescue on Mount Rainier

This paper demonstrates the potential employment of unmanned aerospace system (UAS) technology in the Search and Rescue (SAR) mode.  The scenario is as follows.  “Ascending to 14,410 feet above sea level, Mount Rainier stands as an icon in the Washington landscape” (National Park Service, 2013, Park Home).  Three climbers have embarked on a New Year’s ascent of Mount Rainier in the Pacific Northwest.  They are now two days past their planned return date and have not contacted their loved ones.  Local authorities have called for a Search and Rescue mission for the missing climbers.  The SAR mission will be complicated by the wintery weather.  Searchers will set off on foot from the base of the mountain and work their way to the top.  For the first time ever, unmanned aerospace systems (UAS) will be used to begin the search at the peak of the mountain and work their way down using electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors.  Time is of the essence as a terrible winter storm is predicted to hit the area in several days.

Three UAS platforms are readily available for use by the SAR team.  The first UAS platform is the Insitu Scan Eagle.  The Scan Eagle has an “operating altitude of 16,000 feet above ground level, an endurance of 20 + hours, and carries a high resolution, day/night camera and thermal imager” (U. S. Air Force, 2007, General Characteristics).  The Scan Eagle “system is launched by a catapult, and retrieved by the Skyhook system which uses a hook on the edge of the wingtip to catch a rope hanging from a 30- to 50-foot pole.  It requires no runway for launch or recovery” (U. S. Air Force, 2007, Features).  The second UAS platform available to the SAR team is the Northrop Grumman Corporation Bat 12.  The Bat 12 has a “maximum altitude of 15,000 feet mean seal level and an endurance of up to 12 hours” (Northrop Grumman Corporation, 2013, Specifications (Bat 12)).  According to Northrop Grumman Corporation (2013) the Bat 12 carries a “variety of payloads such as EO/IR, SAR…and Comms Relay” (para. 2) and is “Runway-independent…from a rail launcher and recovers into a portable net” (para. 3).  The third UAS platform available to the SAR team is the General Atomics Predator.  “Flying up to 25,000 feet and with an endurance of 40 hours, Predator incorporates numerous payloads, including Electro-optical/Infrared (EO/IR) video cameras…[and] may be equipped with GA-ASI’s Lynx® Multi-mode Radar, a highly sophisticated all-weather radar that displays photographic quality imagery” (General Atomics Aeronautical, 2013, Performance).  Of the three UAS platforms available to the SAR team the Predator is the only platform that requires a conventional runway for launch and recovery.

Based upon the UAS information available and in consideration of the operational environment the SAR team quickly drafts the Table 1 to help them decide which UAS platform to use for the mission:

Table1. Utility comparison of the three UAS platforms.

Utility Comparison of the Three UAS Platforms
	Scan Eagle	Bat 12	Predator	Notes
Max Altitude Capable	2	1	3
Maximum Endurance	2	1	3
Sensor Capability	2	2	2	All Equal
Ease/Speed of Employment	3	2	1
Flexibility of Operation	3	2	1
Operational Costs	2	2	1	Scan Eagle and Bat Equal
Size of Support Crew	2	2	1	Scan Eagle and Bat Equal
Total Points	16	12	12
Points assigned based upon the judgment of the SAR team with 1 being least preferred and 3 being most preferred.  Highest point value will be chosen for the SAR mission.

(Compiled by author)

While all three platforms would be effective in this scenario, the Scan Eagle has the advantage over the Bat 12 and Predator in Ease/Speed of Employment and Flexibility of Operation and is ultimately chosen for the mission.  Several hours later, the Scan Eagle’s EO/IR sensor detects a weak thermal image from one of the stranded climbers.  This information and location is relayed to a rescue team in the area and the climbers are rescued.

One technical challenge that would have to be overcome in this scenario would be the operation of UAS in the national airspace system (NAS).  Since the integration and operation of unmanned aerospace systems in the NAS is still an unresolved issue the author suggests a Restricted Operating Zone (ROZ) would have to be established around Mount Rainier.  This may impact air tours around the mountain as well as news helicopters trying to get a story but it would be in the best interest of safety in order to avoid midair collisions between the UAS and manned aircraft.  On ethical challenge in this scenario is the choice of UAS platform by the SAR team.  One could argue that no expense should be spared when trying to save human life and that other, more expensive assets should have been used as well.  While this would have been desirable, the truth is that fiscal and operational constraints always limit choices.  In this case, the agile, less costly, but capable Scan Eagle was chosen for the mission.

 

References

General Atomics Aeronautical. (2013). Predator uas. Retrieved from http://www.ga-asi.com/products/aircraft/predator.php

National Park Service. (2013). Mount Rainier: An icon on the horizon. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/mora/index.htm

Northrop Grumman Corporation. (2013). Bat uas. Retrieved from http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/BATUAS/Documents/pageDocuments/Bat_Land_Based_Data_Sheet.pdf

U. S. Air Force. (2007, November 01). Fact sheet: Scan Eagle. Retrieved from http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104532/scan-eagle.aspx

Command, Control, and Communication (C3) of Unmanned Aerospace Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS)

Command, Control, and Communication (C3) of Unmanned Aerospace Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS)

 by

Daniel J. Hall, Jr.

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

ASCI 530

 Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

November 15, 2013

Command, Control, and Communication (C3) of Unmanned Aerospace Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS)

Integration of unmanned aerospace systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS) is a necessary step in realizing the commercial benefits of these systems.  However, methods of command, control, and communication (C3) need to be addressed in order to safely operate UAS in an already congested airspace.  “UAS operations are currently not authorized in Class B airspace, which exists over major urban areas and contains the highest density of manned aircraft in the National Airspace System” (Federal Aviation Administration, 2013a, para. 5).  Fortunately, the benefits of switching from a ground based surveillance system to a satellite based surveillance system as promised by NextGen significantly enhances UAS C3.  For example, “Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) is FAA's satellite-based successor to [ground based] radar.  ADS-B makes use of GPS technology to determine and share precise aircraft location information, and streams additional flight information to the cockpits of properly equipped aircraft” (Federal Aviation Administration, 2011, para. 1).

Until the functionality of NextGen is fully implemented, current UAS C3 systems such as Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation and Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS) could be combined with routing methodologies to ensure separation of manned and unmanned aircraft.  For example, in addressing this issue, the Department of Defense (2011) detailed the following six routing methods to be employed by the suggested UAS groups:

Visual Line-of-Sight (VLOS) – UAS Groups 1, 2, and some 3 - The observer can be located on the ground, in a moving vehicle/boat, or in a chase plane. (p. 10)

Terminal Area Operations - All UAS Groups - The observers or sensors alert the UAS pilot/operator of approaching traffic so actions may be taken to avoid potential collisions with other traffic. (p. 11)

Restricted Operating Areas – All UAS Groups – Nearly 500 existing [Military Operating Areas] MOAs can provide DOD UAS the ability to span 43 states and over a half million square miles of operating space. (p. 13)

Lateral Transit (Corridor) Operations – UAS Groups 3, 4, and 5 – consist of flying from one controlled airspace to another through a pre-defined corridor.  The corridors can potentially be implemented at any altitude, but typically reside in Class E airspace (above 1200 ft. AGL, but below 18,000 ft. MSL). (p. 14)

Vertical Transit (Cylinder) Operations – UAS Groups 4 and 5 – consist of a spiral climb or descent to within controlled airspace to/from Class A controlled airspace (18K – 60K feet) or a designated corridor altitude. (p. 15)

Dynamic Operations – UAS Groups 3, 4, and 5 – envisions that the UAS will possess the ability to integrate routinely into the NAS comparable to today’s manned aircraft.  This concept enables the proponent of an appropriately equipped UAS to file a flight plan and then perform the activities listed in that flight plan with unfettered accesses to the airspace. (P.16)

The Federal Aviation Administration (2013b) stated:

Ultimately, UAS must be integrated into the NAS without reducing existing capacity, decreasing safety, negatively impacting current operators, or increasing the risk to airspace users or persons and property on the ground any more than the integration of comparable new and novel technologies. (p. 4)

The author suggests that commercial integration of UAS into the NAS is possible with current C3 technology and capabilities when combined with variants of the routing methods describe above.

References

Department of Defense. (2011, March). Unmanned aircraft system airspace integration plan (Version 2.0). Retrieved from http://www.mtsi-va.com/docs/Airspace_Integration_Plan_2011.pdf

Federal Aviation Administration. (2011, November 2). NextGen: A strong nucleus. Retrieved from http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/slides/?slide=4

Federal Aviation Administration. (2013a, February 19). Fact sheet – Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). Retrieved from http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14153

Federal Aviation Administration. (2013b, November 7). Integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) roadmap (1st ed.). Retrieved from http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/UAS_Roadmap_2013.pdf

Delivering Pound for Pound Performance in a Precision Crop-Dusting UAS

Delivering Pound for Pound Performance in a Precision Crop-Dusting UAS

by

Daniel J. Hall, Jr.

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

ASCI 530

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

November 1, 2013

Delivering Pound for Pound Performance in a Precision Crop-Dusting UAS

The use of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware is commonplace in the design and development of unmanned aerospace systems (UAS).  The acronym COTS, within the context of this paper, refers to aviation systems, subsystems, and components available for purchase on the open market.  Sadraey (2013) stated, “In order to minimize cost, it is recommended to select standard parts that are commercially available (i.e., commercial off-the-shelf items) for which there are multiple viable suppliers” (p. 32).  The use of COTS hardware enables the UAS developer to focus on the air vehicle as a collection of systems rather than spending resources on the design and development of each individual system, subsystem, and component.  This approach usually accelerates the design and development process, while reducing cost.

During the design of the precision crop-dusting UAS several errors were made resulting in an overweight condition often faced by aviation systems engineers.  Nicolai and Carichner (2010) stated:

It is almost impossible to estimate the empty weight of something that has not been built (usually with new subsystems and structural materials) with any degree of accuracy.  However, it is important to press on or the aircraft will never be designed. (p. 125)

In this case both design teams should have been more cognizant of their weight budgets and the impact their COTS hardware would have on the final product.  Sadraey (2013) emphasized:

First and foremost, it must be emphasized that any engineering selection must be supported by logical and scientific reasoning and analysis.  The designer is not expected to select a configuration just because he/she likes it.  There must be sufficient evidence and reasons which prove that the current selection is the best. (p. 10)

At this point the system engineers must reevaluate the requirements and specifications stipulated by the customer to ensure they are working towards the desired goals.  Sadraey (2013) wrote; “From the perspective of systems engineering, the design of aircraft should not only transform a need into an air vehicle, but also ensure the aircraft’s compatibility with related physical and functional requirements” (p. 22).  The design team needs to meet with the customer and ensure they understand the requirements and specifications that are absolutely necessary and the requirements and specifications that are flexible.  Perhaps the customer will accept compromises in a design aspect that could save the necessary weight.  For example, the design team may discover the customer really wants the capabilities offered by the COTS hardware and is willing to compromise on the fuel capacity.

If the stated requirements and specifications are absolutely necessary then the system engineers must find a means to meet the weight budget.  This would entail a review of not only the COTS hardware systems in question but all systems on the proposed UAS.  It may be possible to reduce weigh in the airframe, propulsion, or flight control systems.  Sadraey (2013) described this type of analysis as a “trade-off analysis” (p. 28).  “As the name implies, trade-off analysis involves both gains and losses; the gains have to be maximized, and the losses must be minimized.  Trade-off is a compromise made between two or more favorable alternatives” (Sadraey, 2013, p. 28).  Ultimately, a means must be found to meet the customer’s requirements and specifications.  If this is not possible then the system engineers must inform the customer of all available options in order to make a decision on whether to pursue the UAS development or cancel the project.  However, in this case it appears the system engineers have identified the issue early enough in the design process that an acceptable solution can be found and a precision crop-dusting UAS developed, tested, and delivered to the customer.

 

References

Nicolai, L. M., & Carichner, G. E. (2010). Fundamentals of aircraft and airship design. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Sadraey, M. H. (2013). Aircraft design: A systems engineering approach. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.