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