Assimilating Unmanned Systems Into Our National
Airspace
A Study of Regulatory Command and Control
by
Stanley
D. Pebsworth
A Research
Project
Submitted
to the Worldwide Campus
In
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Course UNSY 601,
Unmanned
Systems, Command, Control and Communication
Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University
July
2015
Abstract
This research outlines some of the key
factors associated with allowing unmanned systems co-use of our National
Airspace. It gives information on types
and uses of unmanned aerial systems as well as their command, control and
communication characteristics when used.
It outlines key infrastructure changes that will need to be addressed as
well as the challenges in their implementation.
This research addresses Federal Aviation Administration legislation that
would be required to support this transition and outlines training requirements
for users of these unmanned systems.
This research will analyze scholarly and per reviewed data and report on
the implications and challenges associated with allowing unmanned systems
co-use of our National Airspace.
Assimilating Unmanned Systems Into Our National
Airspace
A Study of Regulatory Command and Control
Unmanned
aerial systems range in size from a small radio controlled model airplane to as
large as a commercial airliner. They have
the ability to carry out a multitude of everyday tasks such as bridge
inspections, accident monitoring on our highway systems, drug interdiction,
border security, real-estate surveys, search and rescue as well as instrument
navigational aide certifications for the Federal Aviation Administration. In the private sector, these unmanned systems
are used primarily for aerial photography and video and of course for
recreations.
“While
we shouldn’t be looking to the sky for pizza delivery just yet” says Doug
Davis, who heads the Federal Aviation Administrations Unmanned Aircraft
Program, UAS will be very useful and effective in the near future. While there are no current certified avionics
suites for larger unmanned systems, these packages are not expected until the
years 2020-2025. Government agencies as
well as private agencies are very eager to see the allowance of unmanned
systems in our national airspace knowing that the bars for entry are high
(Tzafestas, et.al.,2009).
Problem Statement
Because
command and control of these unmanned systems are inherently different from
that of manned systems, introducing them into our National Airspace will be
quite a challenging endeavor for the Federal Aviation Administration, State
Regulators, and the aviation community.
Their safe assimilation will require the understanding of unmanned
systems command, control and communications, pertinent regulatory issues and
training required for users of unmanned aerial systems in our National
Airspace.
Problem Significance
It
is essential to understand all aspects of Unmanned Systems operation in order
to adequately assess all potential problems and or issues that may arise during
their integration into our national airspace system. Paying close attention to and educating
ourselves on the operational characteristics of unmanned system will allow the
Federal Aviation Administration, State Regulators, and the aviation community
to make educated decisions about how to safely and effectively integrate
unmanned systems into our national airspace.
Command and Control Issues
Command
and control of unmanned systems ranges from the user being in direct control of
the system like that of a system used for aerial photography by both private
and commercial users to fully autonomous systems where the unmanned system
carries out a specified task assigned by the user. For direct link systems the user can monitor
aircraft position and speed as well as have a visual representation of what is
around the system. In small direct
linked systems such as a small private use drone, the user may or may not have
the capability to communicate with other manned or unmanned aircraft as well as
air traffic control. In fully autonomous
systems, the user may be controlling several unmanned systems at one time and
not be unable to monitor each system simultaneously. This would mean that an autonomous system
would rely solely on its own ability to avoid traffic and monitor and
communicate with other manned and unmanned systems and air traffic control.
Collision
avoidance is fundamental when autonomous unmanned systems operate in controlled
airspace. Examples of collision
avoidance measures include navigation of autonomous vehicle and air traffic management. Common issues with navigation methods is that
they are not able to take constraints like actuator saturation, limited speed
of the system, or time constraints into account. For this reason, navigation approaches have
been combined with model predictive control.
Apart from providing constraint satisfactions, model predictive control
is widely used for optimizing the performance of unmanned systems (Tadesco,
2014).
Command and Control Alternatives
As of 2013, no
suitable technology has been implemented that would provide unmanned aerial
systems with the ability to sense and avoid other aircraft or airborne objects
nor comply with Federal Aviation Administration regulatory requirements on this
matter. However, research and development
efforts suggests that a potential solutions to the sense and avoid obstacle may
be available in the near future. The
Army has been working on a ground-based system that will detect other airborne
objects that will allow the user to direct the system to maneuver and avoid the
detected airborne object. The Army has
successfully tested this system however, it may not be compatible with all
systems due to size and the ability to house the appropriate equipment (Cooney,
2013).
For both directly
piloted and autonomous unmanned systems, reliable navigation is a must. Common approaches to facilitate reliable
navigation of unmanned systems has been through the use of Inertial Navigation
Units and Global Positioning Systems. It
is recognized that given the frailty of the Global Positioning System that an
approach that will allow unmanned systems to continue accurate navigation in
the absence of the Global Positioning System is a must (Kerns, 2014). The use of Flight Management Systems like those
on commercial aircraft could be an option for unmanned systems. These management systems would monitor all
available means of navigation and monitor for error and report to the user when
an out of tolerance situation exists.
A robust and
secure command, control and communication architecture must be developed as
well. NASA and Rockwell Collins are
developing Control and Non-Payload Communication (CNPC) systems that will
protect the dedicated unmanned spectrum.
These CNPC systems will certifiable and able to be integrated into
unmanned systems to allow integration into our national airspace (Griner,
Kerczewski, 2012).
Ensuring
uninterrupted command, control and communications for all unmanned aerial
systems remains an obstacle for safe integration into our national airspace
system. Since unmanned aircraft rely on either direct control or pre-programmed
flight paths from ground control station, the ability to maintain the integrity
of command, control and communication signals are critically important to
ensure that the unmanned systems operate as expected and intended.
Regulatory Issues
The regulatory
framework managing unmanned aerial systems has only recently been
developed. In the past, regulations for
unmanned system operations in the national airspace were inadequate to manage
the growing demand of their use. This
section will analyzes the evolution of regulations and issues regarding the use
of unmanned aerial systems in our national airspace.
In the past, the
Federal Aviation Administration’s main concern was the safe operation of model aircraft. The FAA published regulations for model
aircraft in 1981. This one page Advisory
Circular was about the basic rules and regulations on flying model aircraft for
recreational purposes and required hobbyists to operate their aircraft away
from crowded areas, fly them no higher than 400 feet above ground level and notify
an airport operator or the control tower when operating within three nautical
miles of an airport. This circular
however, was merely an advisory and had no enforceable authority (Cho, 2014).
In order to cope with
the rapid growth of unmanned aerial systems from 1990 - 2000, the Federal
Aviation Administration established a policy guideline in a 2007 Federal
Register notice. This notice stated that
anyone who wishes to operate unmanned systems for non-recreational purposes should
obtain a permit. These permits are not
required for recreational users to operate an unmanned system however, government
agencies and universities can apply for a Certificate of Waiver or
Authorization from the FAA. According to
a Government Accountability Office analysis, there were 391 permits issued in
2012, of which 52 percent were issued to the Department of Defense for training
and operational missions, universities obtained 91 permits, and NASA received
35. In 2012, no for-profit private parties
were granted permits to operate unmanned systems under the regulatory regime preceding
the 2012 legislation (Cho, 2014).
This regulatory
framework was inadequate to manage the growing number of unmanned aerial system
users as well as the technological advancements in this field. The overwhelming
consensus was that operating aircraft below 400 feet was not subject to FAA regulation
be it for recreation or for profit, even though the 2007 Federal Register
notice did bar the commercial use of unmanned aerial systems. Nonetheless, there was no enforcement
regulation under the 2007 notice, which contributed to the operation of
unmanned systems under the assumption that these activities were categorized as
a hobby (Cho, 2014).
Since the 2012 Federal
Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act, the FAA has begun to enforce
the ban on the operation of unmanned systems for commercial purposes. In 2012, Raphael Pirker was fined $10,000 for
operating a model aircraft for commercial purposes without a permit. This case had a huge effect on system users
and was seen as a roadblock to commercial agricultural use. However, the case
was dismissed based on the fact that there were no enforceable FAA regulation applicable
to model aircraft or for classifying model aircraft as an unmanned system. The decision, which the FAA appealed, further
illustrated the confusion over and
inadequacy of existing regulations (Cho, 2014).
Supporters of unmanned
systems perceive the Federal Aviation Modernization Reform Act as an obstacle to
the integration of unmanned systems into our National Airspace. This legislation will require the
administration to create a comprehensive checklist for allowing the commercial
use of unmanned systems that had been previously banned. This legislation also
mandated standards so that government agencies can obtain permits in an
efficient manner. The 2012 Act requires the Administration to integrate civil
unmanned aerial systems into our national airspace by September 2015 (Cho,
2014).
As of June 2014, there
have been two commercial unmanned systems operations authorized by the FAA. ConocoPhillips
was allowed to operate a ScanEagle to survey ice flows and whales in order to
reduce their environmental impact on the area.
The second approval was granted to BritishPetroleum in June 2014. BP flew a Puma AE to inspect oil fields in
Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. These two permits
marked the first Certificates of Authorization approved for commercial unmanned
system operations (Cho, 2014).
In another step
forward, the Federal Aviation Administration in June 2014 issued new guidelines
for model aircraft operators. The guideline now encourages model aircraft
operators to contact the airport or control tower when within 5 nautical miles
of an airport, not to fly near manned aircraft and stay within line of sight of
the operator for safety. The FAA also
considers the weight of a model aircraft used for recreational purposes to be
less than 55 pounds (Cho, 2014).
Regulatory Alternatives
There are currently only two ways to get
approval to operate an unmanned system that
falls outside the model aircraft category. The first is to obtain an experimental
airworthiness certificate for
training, flight demonstrations or research and development. The second is to obtain a
Certificate of Waiver or Authorization. Obtaining
an experimental airworthiness certificate is currently the only way civil
operators are accessing the national airspace system. The experimental certificate regulations preclude carrying people or
property for compensation or hire, but do allow operations for research and
development, flight and sales demonstrations and crew training. The Federal Aviation Administration is currently
developing a future path for safe integration of civil unmanned systems into
the national airspace system as part of NextGen implementation (Dorr, Duquette 2014).
Certificates
of Waiver are also available to public entities that wish to fly unmanned
systems in civil airspace. Common uses
today include law enforcement, firefighting, border patrol, disaster relief,
search and rescue, military training, and other government operational
missions. Applicants can make their
request online and the FAA evaluates the proposed operation to see if it can be
conducted safely. The Certificate of
Waiver allows the use of a defined block of airspace and includes special
provisions unique to the proposed operational use. Certificates of Waiver are usually issued for
a specific period of time, up to two years in many cases (Dorr, Duquette 2014).
As
the Federal Aviation Administration develops future regulatory requirements for
unmanned aerial systems, whether it be for civil or commercial use, the FAA
must categorize and classify these systems.
To simply develop rules and regulations that encompass all possible
types, sizes and user experience of an
unmanned system in inadequate. Such
classification is important due to the significant differences in safety associated
with each category and class. As an
example, a micro class would be so light that if an impact occurred the
probability of a fatality or serious injury might be improbable and as well are
very unlikely to cause issues with other manned aircraft (Tzafestas,
et.al.,2009). Below is a proposed chart
from Tzafestas, (2009) that would future clarify the classification of UAS
based on their ground impact risk to human life and or property (TGI)
given a population density of 200 persons per km2.
Proposed UAS Classification for Certification Purposes
|
Number
|
TGI
|
Category
MTOW
|
Name
|
Notes
|
|
|
0
|
102
|
Up
to 200g
|
Micro
|
Most countries don’t regulate
this category since these vehicles pose minimal threat to human life or
property.
|
|
|
1
|
103
|
Up
to 2.4 kg
|
Mini
|
These two categories correspond
to converted R/C model aircraft. The operation of the latter is based on
AC91-57 which the FAA has decided is not applicable for UAS
|
|
|
2
|
104
|
Up
to 28 kg
|
Small
|
See Mini
|
|
|
3
|
105
|
Up
to 336 kg
|
Light/Ultralight
|
Airworthiness certification for
this category may be based either on ultralights (FAR Part 103), LSA (Order
8130) or normal aircraft (FAR Part 23).
|
|
|
4
|
106
|
Up
to 4,000 kg
|
Normal
|
Based on MTOW these vehicles
correspond to normal aircraft (FAR Part 23).
|
|
|
5
|
107
|
Up
to 47,580 kg
|
Large
|
These vehicles correspond to the
transport category (FAR Part 25).
|
Source (Tzafestas,
et.al, 2009)
Training Issues
The safe operation of unmanned
systems will be attributed to quality training and teamwork. Effective training consists of experienced
instructors, defined standards as well as a defined evaluation methods. Emphasis should be placed on proper crew
coordination procedures as well as the results of failing to follow established
rules. Proper selection and training of
unmanned crews will be essential to the safe operation of unmanned systems
within our national airspace system (Merlin, 2013).
As
of the Spring of 2013, the Federal Aviation Administration has yet to publish
rules and regulations regarding the certification requirements for unmanned system
operators. However, they have stated
that they will address the requirements for command, control and communications
as well as how unmanned systems will adhere to the see and avoid requirements. Getting right down to it, how unmanned
systems are command and controlled will be the main point of these training
requirements (Mirot, 2013).
Training Alternatives
In
establishing training requirements, the Federal Aviation Administration will
need to accomplish two tasks. The first
task will be in giving a definition of what an unmanned aerial system is that
is in no way similar or confusing when compared to the definition of a model
aircraft. This definition should take
into account size, weight, and performance characteristics of the unmanned
system. A more precise definition will
eliminate possible confusion once operators are required to poses unmanned
systems qualifications (Mirot, 2013).
The
second task the Federal Aviation Administration must accomplish is to
categorize unmanned aerial systems and make required qualifications related to
each category. The Department of Defense
has recognized this need and has created five categories for classifying
unmanned aerial systems. These five
groups place limits on takeoff weight, operating altitude and performance
characteristics. The Department of
Defense then placed operator requirements on each of these categories (Mirot,
2013).
Department of Defense UAS Categories
|
UAS
Category
|
Maximum
TO Weight (pounds)
|
Maximum
Operating ALT
|
Maximum
Airspeed KIAS
|
Example
UAS
|
|
Group 1
|
0-20
|
<1,200 AGL
|
100 KTS
|
RQ-11 Raven
|
|
Group 2
|
21-55
|
<3,500 AGL
|
<250 KTS
|
ScanEagle
|
|
Group 3
|
56-1320
|
<18,000 MSL
|
< 250 KTS
|
RQ-7 Shadow
|
|
Group 4
|
>1320
|
<18,000 MSL
|
No Limit
|
MQ-1 Predator
|
|
Group 5
|
>1320
|
>18,000 MSL
|
No Limit
|
MQ-9 Reaper
|
Source (Mirot,
2013)
These Department of Defense
categories can be easily adapted to meet the needs of the Federal Aviation
Administration and its much larger unmanned system community. Below is a proposed modified category list
for unmanned aerial systems that would operate in our national airspace.
Proposed UAS Categories for the Purpose of Pilot Certification
|
UAS
Category
|
Maximum
TO Weight (pounds)
|
Maximum
Operating ALT
|
Maximum
Airspeed KIAS
|
Example
UAS
|
|
Category 1
|
0-25
|
<400 AGL
|
<87 KTS
|
RQ-11 Raven
|
|
Category 2
|
26-55
|
<2,000 AGL
|
<87 KTS
|
ScanEagle
|
|
Category 3
|
56-1320
|
2,000-18,000 MSL
|
87-250 KTS
|
RQ-7 Shadow
|
|
Category 4
|
>1320
|
>18,000 MSL
|
No Limit
|
MQ-9 Reaper
|
Source (Mirot,
2013)
The Federal Aviation Administration
will also need to outline the requirements for each category of unmanned
system. Having flown the preponderance
of unmanned system hours, the Department of Defense and the Joint Chief of
Staff have created unmanned aerial systems training requirements. It would be advantageous for the Federal
Aviation Administration to issue pilot requirements based on the lessons
learned by the DoD and ensure requirements have a common level of understanding
that mirror current aviator requirements.
Below is a proposed list of these certification requirements.
Proposed Pilot Certification Requirements by Category
|
UAS Category
|
Requirements
|
|
Category 1
|
Attend a private
pilot ground course and pass an FAA written exam
|
|
Category 2
|
All qualifications of
Category 1 plus hold an FAA sport pilot’s license
|
|
Category 3
|
All qualifications of
Category 1 plus hold an FAA private pilot’s license
|
|
Category 4
|
All qualifications of
Category 3 plus hold an FAA instrument rating
|
Source (Mirot, 2013)
Medical requirements are another issue facing the Federal
Aviation Administration. Currently an
Aviation Class II Medical Certificate is required for all unmanned aerial
systems operators and observers as required for see and avoid. This requirement far exceeds the requirements
for actual manned aircraft in similar categories not to mention that flying
model aircraft under 55 pounds and below 400 feet requires no aviation medical
certification at all. Below is a
proposed logical approach that classifies medical requirements by level.
Proposed Medical Requirements for UAS Operators
|
UAS Qualification Level
|
Maximum TO Weight (pounds)
|
Maximum
Operating ALT
|
Maximum
Airspeed KIAS
|
Medical
Requirement
|
|
Level 1
|
0-25
|
<400 AGL
|
<87 KTS
|
Valid US Driver’s
License
|
|
Level 2
|
26-55
|
<2,000 AGL
|
<87 KTS
|
Valid US Driver’s
License
|
|
Level 3
|
56-1320
|
2,000-18,000 MSL
|
87-250 KTS
|
Third Class Medical
|
|
Level 4
|
>1320
|
>18,000 MSL
|
No Limit
|
Third Class
Medical
|
|
Level 2,3,4
|
Commercial
Application of a UAS
|
Second Class
Medical
|
||
Source (Mirot, 2013)
There is no doubt that the unmanned aerial
systems qualification and medical requirements will be a complex issue. It will be necessary for the Federal Aviation
Administration to draw on the knowledge gained by the Department of Defense and
enact rules and regulations that will allow for safe integration of unmanned
systems in our national airspace.
Recommendation
The
Federal Aviation Administration seems ill-prepared for the complex legal issues
and regulatory challenges that new domestic drones will bring. Within the United States, there are already
reports of civilian drones crashing into buildings, hazardously close
encounters with helicopters, peeping into residential windows, and being
intentionally shot down. Anticipating
the potential benefits and issues associated with the domestic drone market,
Congress enacted legislation in 2012 instructing the Federal Aviation
Administration to adopt new regulations by September 2015 to facilitate the
smooth integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into our national
airspace. However, it appears
increasingly doubtful that the Federal Aviation Administration will meet that
deadline. In the meantime, the agency is
attempting to enforce a controversial moratorium on most commercial drone use
(Rule, 2015).
To
date, most activity relating to domestic drones have centered on the devices'
potential impact on privacy rights and criminal evidence gathering. Regrettably, legal academicians and
policymakers have devoted far less attention to an unsettled property law
question that still does not define up to what height land owners hold strict
rights to exclude flying objects from physically invading the airspace above
their land? Legal uncertainty and confusion are likely to continue swirling
around the domestic drone industry until courts or legislators clear up this
basic property question (Rule, 2015).
Innovations
in the domestic drone industry are making it possible for citizens to access
low-altitude airspace like never before.
Although these technological advances have the potential to greatly
benefit humankind, they are also creating new and unprecedented conflicts
involving the space through which they fly.
Prior to the advent of modern drones, there were no pressing needs to
precisely define the scope of landowners' property interests in low-altitude
airspace. Unfortunately, as a growing
flock of domestic drones stands ready for takeoff, ambiguous airspace rights
laws are now threatening to impede the growth of an important new industry
(Rule, 2015).
In
the midst of these pressures, principles of microeconomics and property theory
call for new laws giving landowners more definite rights to exclude drones from
the airspace directly above their land. These
exclusion rights would be most effective if they were treated as equivalent to
rights that landowners have long enjoyed in surface land and if they extend all
the way up to the navigable airspace line where the public highway for air
travel begins. Laws establishing such
rights would create a simple exclusion regime for low-altitude airspace that is
better suited to handle aerial trespass and questions involving domestic
drones. These laws could also be an
integral part of a broader system of new federal, state, and local laws
tailored to drones' unique characteristics.
By enacting clear and efficient drone laws, policymakers can help to
ensure that the sky is the limit for the domestic drone industry in the
twenty-first century (Rule, 2015).
References
Cooney, M. (2013). Drones still face major communications
challenges getting onto US airspace. Network World. Retrieved from http://www.networkworld.com/article
/2224063/security/drones-still-face-major-communications-challenges-getting-onto-us-airspace.html
Cho, Y. (2014). Lost in debate: The safety of domestic unmanned aircraft systems.
Journal of Strategic Security, 7(4), 38-56. doi:10.5038/1944-0472.7.4.4
Dorr, L., Duquette,
A.(2014). Fact Sheet-Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (UAS). Federal Aviation Administration. Retrieved from http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news
_story.cfm?newsId=14153
Griner, J. H., & Kerczewski, R. J.
(2012). Control and non-payload
communications links for integrated unmanned aircraft operations. Paper
presented at the
Ison, D. C., Terwilliger, B., &
Vincenzi, D. (2014). Privacy,
restriction, and regulation involving federal, state and local legislation:
More hurdles for unmanned aerial systems (UAS) integration? Journal of
Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 24(1), 41.
Kapnik, B. (2012). Unmanned but accelerating: Navigating the regulatory and privacy
challenges of introducing unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system.
Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 77(3), 439.
Kerns, A. J., Shepard, D. P., Bhatti, J.
A., & Humphreys, T. E. (2014). Unmanned
aircraft capture and control via GPS spoofing. Journal of Field Robotics,
31(4), 617-636. doi:10.1002/rob.21513
Merlin, P. (2013). Crash course: lessons learned from accidents
involving remotely piloted and autonomous aircraft. NASA. Retrieved from http://www.nasa.gov
/pdf/732725main_crash_course-ebook.pdf
Mirot, A. (2013). The future of unmanned aircraft systems pilot qualification.
Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 22(3), 19.
Rule, T. A. (2015). AIRSPACE IN AN AGE OF DRONES. Boston University Law Review, 95(1),
155.
Tedesco, F., Raimondo, D. M., &
Casavola, A. (2014). Collision avoidance
command governor for multi‐vehicle unmanned systems.
International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 24(16), 2309-2330.
doi:10.1002/rnc.2989
Tzafestas, S., Dalamagkidis, K., &
Valavanis, K. P. (Eds.). (2009). On
Integrating Unmanned Aircraft Systems into the National Airspace System :
Issues, Challenges, Operational Restrictions, Certification, and
Recommendations. Dordrecht, NLD: Springer. Retrieved from
http://www.ebrary.com
Wolf, H.G. (2013). Unmanned aircraft systems integration into the national airspace. Aerospace Conference. 2013 IEEE.
1(16),
2-9. doi: 10.1109/AERO.2013.6496918
No comments:
Post a Comment