1 / 31

Normalizing UAV Access to the National Airspace System – Progress Report –

April 2002. Normalizing UAV Access to the National Airspace System – Progress Report –. OUTLINE. OSD/FAA Program Relation to Access 5/UNITE Effort Facts Underlying Airspace Access Issues Conclusions. BACKGROUND. SCOPE. FAA/OSD project is intended to address:

hope-combs
Download Presentation

Normalizing UAV Access to the National Airspace System – Progress Report –

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. April 2002 Normalizing UAV Access to the National Airspace System– Progress Report –

  2. OUTLINE • OSD/FAA Program • Relation to Access 5/UNITE Effort • Facts Underlying Airspace Access Issues • Conclusions

  3. BACKGROUND

  4. SCOPE • FAA/OSD project is intended to address: - Air traffic issues for operating military ROAs in U.S. civil airspace • FAA/OSD project is not intended to address: - Airworthiness issues (addressed by OSS&E process) - Aircrew qualification issues (Service-specific rules) • FAA/OSD project is intended to lay the groundwork for: - U.S. military ROA flight within international or foreign airspace - U.S. civil/commercial ROA flight within the NAS

  5. GOAL • To enable routine (same day file & fly) access into the National Airspace System while maintaining an equivalent level of safety • No COA process required for qualifying UAV flights

  6. PHASES OF FAA/OSD EFFORT • TECHNICAL PHASE • Develop software tool for evaluating See & Avoid systems and scenarios • Evaluate S&A system for use in Implementation phase • Obtain FAA approval/concurrence of selected S&A system • REGULATORY PHASE • Propose File & Fly language for FAA order 7610.4J • Coordinate F&F language through AFFSA led IPT • Publish revised 7610.4J • IMPLEMENTATION PHASE • Select UAV and integrate S&A system • Deploy UAV/S&A system • File DD175 and fly planned demonstration • Revise 7610.4J with lessons learned, as needed P * P * *

  7. DEMONSTRATION (Notional Route) New England Region Northwest Mountain Region Springfield Great Lakes Region 8 6 Ft. Dodge Casper Eastern Region 9 Western Pacific Region Dayton 7 NASA Wallops IslandMission Control Central Region 5 1 Kingman 4 Southwest Region GOALS Southern Region Hobbs • Exercise File & Fly Procedure • Employ FAA-approved S&A system 3 Valdosta 2 Lake Charles REQUIREMENTS USAF UAV BattlelabB/U Mission Control • Land and Takeoff in each FAA Region • File IFR flight plan for Class E airspace • Fly 600 nm logs between sunrise and sunset

  8. COOPERATIVE EFFORTS • FAA/OSD, 2001-2005 • Technical Phase: See & Avoid Requirements Quantification • Regulatory Phase: File & Fly Procedures • Implementation Phase: F&F Demonstration of S&A-equipped UAV • Access 5, 2003-2007 • Step 1: File COA to/from SUA to FL400+ • Step 2: File COA to/from SUA to FL180+ • Step 3: File & Fly to/from ROA Airports to FL180+ • Step 4: Lost Link Abort into ROA Airports • UNITE, 2002 • Commercially-oriented counterpart to Access 5 g

  9. CONSOLIDATING AIRSPACE EFFORTS Civil (Commercial) Public Military Other State Class E FL600 FL400 Class A FL180 Class E 1200 ft*AGL Class G FAA/OSD Access 5 UNITE

  10. TIMELINES OF EFFORTS TECHNICAL (S&A–MARCAT/DRA/VACS) REGULATORY (7610.4 REV) IMPLEMENTATION (DEMO) F&F SUA/FL400+ COA SUA/FL180+ COA Airport/FL 180+ F&F FAA/OSD Airport/FL 180+/ Alternate Recovery F&F UNITE/Access 5 FY 02 FY 03 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 04

  11. LAYING THE GROUNDWORK ROA Flight in Foreign Airspace ROA Flight in International Airspace Civil ROA Traffic Ops Civil ROA Airworthiness Civil ROA Crew Qualifications Public ROA Crew Qualifications Public ROA Airworthiness Public ROA Traffic Ops

  12. DEFINING FAA’s “FLYING DEVICES” Regulated Aircraft* Remotely Operated Aircraft (Global Hawk) Regulated UAVs (Pioneer) Unregulated UAVs (Dragon Eye) • Regulated Non-Aircraft • Ultralights (“air vehicles”) • Balloons • Model Rockets • Unregulated Non-Aircraft • RC models * Only “aircraft” are certified airworthy and require licensed pilots

  13. ISSUES with CURRENT PROCESS • Process for authorizing ROA flights in the National Airspace Systems (NAS) is too cumbersome • ROA flights currently treated as exceptional events • Up to 60 days prior notification required to obtain a COA • Process for authorizing ROA flights is too restrictive • Key terms are open to interpretation • Requirements for additional onboard equipment, chase planes, ground observers, and local coordination increase ROA operating costs • Process for authorizing ROA flights is not standardized • Nine FAA regions, each imposing differing requirements for ROAs • Complicates planning for any ROA flight transiting two or more regions • Europe (13 nations) moving ahead to establish uniform set of ROA standards

  14. APPROACHES Issue Possible Approach Example Outcome Too Cumbersome Replace COA process DD175-like process for filing flight plans Too Restrictive Develop system-based definition for “See & Avoid” Update to AC 90-48C Not Standardized Use existing CFRs as patterns for ROA regulation Modified 14 CFR 103 for “tactical” ROAs

  15. “EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY” • ROAs can injure people and/or damage property in two ways: • Falling from the sky ground casualties • Colliding in midair airborne (and possibly ground) casualties Source: NTSB

  16. CURRENT UAV RELIABILITY Class A’s per 100,000 hrs of flight Bottom Line: UAV reliability needs to improve by a factor of 10-100 Source: OSD draft study “UAV Reliability,” 2003.

  17. AIRSPACE RESTRICTIONS • Military UAVs operate in military Class D airspace today • Phase in UAV flights in non-military Class B, C, and D airspaces • Allow operations in Class D when a civil/military MOA for ground operations is in place for that airfield • Follow with operations in Class C • UAVs most compatible with operations in Class B • Political, vice technical or procedural, considerations will dictate access Bottom Line: Access to NAS should follow a phased approach

  18. CONCLUSIONS • AFFSA-led update to 7610.4J with the FAA is key to demonstration phase of on-going OSD/FAA effort • Access 5 (OSD, FAA, NASA, and HAE UAV industry) offers good potential for synergy in working airspace access issues

  19. KINETIC ENERGY COMPARISON 39 M 26 M KE, FT-LB 8M 6M 4M 2M TWO-PLACE ULTRALIGHT MAX KE= 7,959,092 FT-LB 7.7 M MAX SPEED KE 7.6 M LOITERING KE 2.7 M 2.3 M 0.034 M 0.012 M Dragon Eye Pointer Shadow Pioneer Hunter Predator

  20. BRIDGING THE MILITARY-CIVIL GAP ROA Flight in Foreign Airspace ROA Flight in International Airspace Civil ROA Traffic Ops Civil ROA Airworthiness Civil ROA Crew Qualifications FAA/OSD Effort NASA/ERAST Effort AIA Effort Public ROA Crew Qualifications Public ROA Airworthiness Public ROA Traffic Ops FAA Order 7610.4J Unit/System COAs OSS & E Process DCMA Policy Letter

  21. Civil UAV/ROA Traffic Civil ROA Airworthy Civil ROA Crew Quals Technology Technology Technology Regulations Regulations Regulations • CPDL? • Coll. Avoid • WAAS • LAAS • ADS-B • Reliability • Control Sys • Autonomy • Certified Simulators wrt flights • Part 91 • New 107 • GPS A&L • Airfields • Part 21 • Control Systems • Autonomy • Mods to Part 61 BRIDGING THE MILITARY-CIVIL GAP ROA Flight in Foreign Airspace Traffic Ops Airworthiness Crew Quals • Euro – JAA • Japan • Australia • Other • ICAO • Other • ICAO • Or • Other ROA Flight in International Airspace Traffic Ops Airworthiness Crew Quals • Policy • ICAO • Tech • RNP • RVSM • ICAO • Reliability • GATM • HMS • Policy • ICAO Civil Multi-Vehicle Ops? FAA/OSDEffort Public UAV/ROA Traffic Public ROA Airworthy Multi-Vehicle Ops Qual Public ROA Crew Quals Regulations Regulations Regulations Technology Technology Technology Regulations Technology • 7610.4J • Service Pubs • Collision Avoidance • IFF • Radios • MH 516 • OSS&E • LE Engines • Certified • Controls • Autonomy • TBD • Multi- Capable Control Systems • Services • DCMA Policy • Sims • Course Analysis

  22. WHY CAN’T THIS BE DONE TODAY? • 14 CFR does not preclude military (i.e.,”public”UAV flight in the NAS • FAA Order 7610.4J is not direction to the Services, but… • Service regulations impose constraints based on 7610.4J • See & Avoid is a capability constraint, not a regulatory one Bottom Line: Self-imposed constrains restrict military UAV flight

  23. SEVEN KEY ISSUES • Aircrew Certification • Airworthiness Certification • See & Avoid • Collision Avoidance Systems • Equivalent Level of Safety (Reliability) • Lost Communication Procedures • Airspace Restrictions

  24. PUBLIC AIRCRAFT EXEMPTIONS • Aircrew Certification • Services run training courses for pilots and sensor operators • DLA letter requires civilian pilots of military UAVs to be IFR-qualified • Airworthiness Certification • Operational, Safety, Suitability, and Effectiveness (OSS&E) process used • Global Hawk currently undergoing this process Bottom Line: Self certification = No FAA certification issues prohibiting military (“public”) UAV flight

  25. SEE & AVOID • AC 90-48C provides cockpit field of regard advice • Air Force S&A Flight Tests • IR nose camera for Global Hawk (ASC/RAV) • DRA optical flow EO sensor (AFRL/SNJW) • Navy S&A Flight Tests • Skywatch transponder/receiver (PMA-263) • Midair Collision Avoidance System (MCAS) (PMA-263) • Amphitech Oasys radar plus IR (PMA-263)

  26. THE “SEE” IN SEE & AVOID Oncoming Traffic is… Onboard Systems are…

  27. COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEMS • TCAS-II can provide automated avoidance maneuver • ESC dropped objections to integrating TCAS II into UAVs • No TCAS II certified for integration into flight control systems (advisory only) • Geneva VACS flight tested (AFRL/VAAI - Nov 02) • DRA sensor and avoidance algorithms used to key maneuvers • Lag induced by satcom data links equals 0.24+ sec per call/response Bottom Line: UAV operations beyond LOS necessitate an automated S&A system

  28. MARCAT • Tool for defining see & avoid criteria for various collision scenarios • Useful for evaluating adequacy of proposed combinations of CA systems and UAVs • “Rheostats” available for specific sensor, UAV, and target aircraft performance metrics • Visually depicts “escape zones” as two aircraft converge • Next step adds comparison with human eye • Future step provides human factors (sky background, target paint scheme) Computer Demonstration

  29. LOST COMMUNICATION PROCEDURES • Military UAVs typically programmed to: • Climb to altitude h to reestablish contact • If contact not reestablished in time t, then • Retrace outbound route home, or • Fly direct to home, or • Continue mission • Mission and flight termination procedures distinct from those for lost comm • No procedure for comm-out recovery short of ditching aircraft Mystery to the controller! Bottom Line: DoD standard needed for UAV lost comms guidance

  30. SUMMARY • Current FAA regulations do not preclude UAV flight in the NAS • See & avoid is a technical capability, not a regulatory issue • Remaining key issues are procedural in nature

More Related