A history and introduction to civil unmanned aircraft systems in Australia. Discussion is provided on some of the current challenges facing the civil UAS sector and the research being undertaken to address these challenges

Clothier, Reece A.

English

Name not available

An overview of UAS : capabilities and challenges

Queensland University of Technology ePrints Archive

An Overview of UAS Capabilities and Challenges Reece Clothier Senior Research Fellow Australian Research Centre for Aerospace Automation  Queensland University of Technology r.clothier@qut.edu.au Overview of Presentation   A quick history lesson   Snapshot of current systems and recent operations   Potential civil and commercial applications   When it makes sense to use them   Discussion on autonomy   General challenges   Enabling research Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. What are Unmanned Aircraft Systems?  “An aircraft and its associated elements which are operated with no pilot on board” (ICAO, Circular 328)   Remotely Piloted Aircraft    “Fully Autonomous UAS”  Unmanned Aircraft System   Can comprise of one or more unmanned aircraft   Remote pilot station   Communications   Launch and recovery   The remote pilot crew! Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. A New Technology? “Queen Bee” - "Radio Controls Robot Plane On Pilotless Flight." Popular Mechanics, October 1935, p.551   350 BC Archytas’ “Pigeon”   1849 Austrian balloon bombs   1916 Hewitt-Sperry Automatic Airplane    1935 Tiger Moth DH.82 “Queen Bee”    1944/46 B-17 Conversions   1955 Ryan Firebee for Reconnaissance   … Modern day systems Hewitt-Sperry Automatic Airplane aka “The Flying Bomb” Photo: General Motors Institute Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. Australian History – A Snapshot   c1910 A.J Roberts’ Aerial Torpedo   1952 Jindivik – aerial target   ~1996 Nulka – active missile decoy   ~1997 MQM-107E Kalkara   1998 Aerosonde crosses the North Atlantic Miessner, BF (1916) “Radiodynamics, the wireless control of torpedoes and other mechanisms” © Aerosonde, Pty Ltd. Jindivik. Image: Commonwealth Government of Australia, RAN Website Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. Australian Unmanned Aircraft Industry Kingfisher II BAE Systems Australia, VIC ScanEagle Insitu Pacific Ltd, QLD Flamingo – Silvertone, NSW CyberEye II – Cyber Technology, WA Medium Airship Airship Solutions, NSW cyberQuad Cyber Technology, WA Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. Australian Unmanned Aircraft Industry Aerosonde Mark 4.7 AAI, Aersonde VIC Kestral Automated Target Detection Software, Sentient, VIC CM160 Gimbaled Camera UAV Vision, NSW Phoenix Jet Aerial Targets  Air Affairs Australia, NSW T2000UAV-L, Mode 3/A Transponder Microair, QLD i-Flight 650  Flight Vision, NSW ARCAA Rotor-Wing UAS  ARCAA, QLD Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. ADF Trials, Operational Platforms & Procurement   2001 Global Hawk (Demonstration)   2005 - Skylark I   2006 Mariner (Demonstration)   2007 ScanEagle (Contracted Service)   2009 Heron (Contracted Service)   2010/2011 Shadow 200B TUAS   2013 – 2015 Small “Tier 1” UAS (Skylark replacement)   2020? ADF HALE Multi-mission UAS (AIR-7000-1B) Photos courtesy of the Australian Department of Defence and USAF Copyright © 2012 R. Cl thi r. All rights reserved. Fire front mapping - WA 2010 – Photo: Channel 10 QLD Floods 2011 – Photo: Lyndon Mechielsen, Jono Searle Sharks off South Stradbroke Island – Photo: Sarah Marshall ARCAA automated marine mammal detection from an aircraft Civil and Commercial Opportunities Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. Civil and Commercial Opportunities ARCAA Helicopter UAS performing crop phenotyping Automated inspection of power lines. Photo taken from a UAS with automated power line detection algorithm (ARCAA and CRC-SI) Damage to Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant – photo taken from a UAS.  (AP Photo/Air Photo Service) Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. When it Makes Sense to Use Them   Not just cost (in some cases UAS can be MORE expensive)   For any application considered too:   Dull  (e.g., persistent communications relay)   Dirty (e.g., Fukushima power plant, ash clouds)   Dangerous (e.g., low altitude, poor weather conditions)   Demanding (e.g., too fast or too long for a pilot)   UAS are not a panacea to all problems   They are not without their disadvantages   They cannot replace piloted aircraft in many applications Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. Why Remove the Human?   Smaller, faster, longer, stronger… but are they safer??    Pilots account for 60-70% of accidents…   What we don’t typically consider is how often the pilot saves the day   E.g., the Gimili Glider   New safety paradigm emerges:   Dealing with a system instead of just an aircraft   Impact on all aspects of design, manufacture, maintenance, and operation   New hazards are created and the significance of existing or “known” hazards changes   New public attitude towards the risks   Diverse range of unmanned aircraft equally diverse risk profile   New design philosophy - commercial commodity, potentially disposable Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. How Far Removed? Sheridan, T.B. and Verplank, W., “Human and Computer Control of Undersea Teleoperators.” Cambridge, MA: Man-Machine Systems Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, MIT. 1978. Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. Challenge 1 – Understanding the Role of The Human   Human is just as critical to the safe operation of UAS as it is to conventionally piloted aviation   New “human factors” emerge across all aspects of the design, manufacture, maintenance and operation of UAS:   The absence of a “shared fate” between the pilot and the aircraft leading to a propensity for more risk taking behaviour   Physical - parallax, spatial disorientation, glare   Situational awareness - changes in the information available to the pilot and the manner in which it is presented   Tone of the engine, smell of smoke or the “feel” of icing?   Operator trust in the system and knowledge of its “correct” behaviour   Complacency and reduced pilot proficiency due to a reliance on automation   Maintenance i.e., the “model aircraft attitude” Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. Challenge 2 - Social Concerns   Social perception   Weapons of war   Lack of knowledge   Perception of the risks   Increasingly risk averse  society   Who’s to blame?   Broader social issues   Privacy   Noise   Job losses?   Difference between model aircraft  and UAS Droning on The Times, London.  Jan 6, 2012.   “…in Gaza the sound of drones buzzing overhead is known as zenana, the slang for a persistently nagging wife.”  Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. Challenge 3 – Managing the Risks   Developing and promulgating appropriate regulations   UAS are expected to demonstrate a minimum of an equivalent level of safety to manned aviation, in relation to:   Risks to other airspace users   Risks to people on the ground over-flown by UAS   Absence of prescriptive regulations   UAS operations are currently managed on a case-by-case basis    Approval often includes significant restrictions on where and how they can be operated   Significant effort to progress regulations to permit greater freedom in the operation for UAS Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. Managing the Risk to People on the Ground Image taken from: Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2009-2034, US Department of Defence Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. Managing the Risks to People on the Ground   Higher degree of system airworthiness is needed to operate over populous areas   Difficulty in demonstrating reliability   The required level has not been defined   Limited operational data, quality aviation components, data on components to make safety assessments    No person on-board - potential tradeoffs in airworthiness   Mitigations:   Constrain operations to unpopulated regions    Automated Emergency Landing Systems   Automated Recovery Systems (pre-programmed)   Flight Termination Systems (e.g., parachute)   Frangible systems Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. Managing the Risk to Other Airspace Users   Not like it was in the early 20th century   UAS must:   Demonstrate an Equivalent Level of Safety to conventionally piloted aircraft operations Photo: SUAS News   Seamlessly operate alongside other airspace users (same rules of the air)   Appear to ATC as no different to any other aircraft   Routine UAS operations require technologies to    mitigate the risk of a midair collision   operate alongside manned aviation (i.e., radio calls, coordination) in the absence of a communications link to the remote pilot station Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. Addressing the Challenges… Enabling Technologies Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. Automated Emergency Landing Systems Safe landing of aircraft High altitude continuous mapping. High level landing site identification Site selection, dynamic path planning, guidance and control down to final decision point Low altitude site characterisation, dynamic path planning, guidance and control. Engine Failure Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. Research – Automated Emergency Landing System Algorithm Developed by  D.L Fitzgerald Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. Automated Midair Collision Avoidance System Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. Regulation Development   2005/2006 – ARCAA UAS Workshops   2007 UAS Australia formed   2009 Australia Aerospace Industry Forum, Certification & Regulation Working Group for UAS formed   Recommendations to CASA   2009 Aviation White Paper   June 2011 – CASA project to review CASR 101   Nov 2012 – CASA SCC Formed Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. Australia a Leader in Civil UAS?   Unique “pull” for technology   End users with unique applications   Limited budget to provide services to a distributed country (e.g., SAR, environmental management, infrastructure management, etc.)   Unique environment for their operation   Airspace and unpopulated regions   Unique combination of skills to overcome challenges   Cooperative industry and proactive safety regulator   Indigenous research and industry capabilities   Operational experience in civil UAS operations Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. Summary   UAS are not a new technology but they have recently matured to a point where many civil & commercial applications are becoming viable   There is greater awareness of their capability in end user groups   However, UAS are not without their challenges   Not a replacement for piloted aircraft   Not as simple as just “removing the pilot”   Restrictions on their operation over populous areas and in non-segregated airspace    There are public concerns   Research to overcome these challenges Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. QUESTIONS Reece Clothier Australian Research Centre for Aerospace Automation r.clothier@qut.edu.au www.arcaa.aero Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved. 

An overview of UAS : capabilities and challenges

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Name not available

Queensland University of Technology ePrints Archive