slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Project on Unmanned Aircraft in the NAS Mid-semester Review Panel Meeting PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Project on Unmanned Aircraft in the NAS Mid-semester Review Panel Meeting

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 58

Project on Unmanned Aircraft in the NAS Mid-semester Review Panel Meeting - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 177 Views
  • Uploaded on

Project on Unmanned Aircraft in the NAS Mid-semester Review Panel Meeting. Expert Review Panel. Tom Curtin, AUVSI & ONR Jim Geibel, GAO Tom Henricks, AW&ST Ramon Lopez, Aurora Flight Sciences Molly Macauley, Resources for the Future James Sizemore, FAA John Walker, RTCA SC-203

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Project on Unmanned Aircraft in the NAS Mid-semester Review Panel Meeting' - gwenllian


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Project on Unmanned Aircraft in the NAS

Mid-semester Review Panel Meeting

expert review panel
Expert Review Panel
  • Tom Curtin, AUVSI & ONR
  • Jim Geibel, GAO
  • Tom Henricks, AW&ST
  • Ramon Lopez, Aurora Flight Sciences
  • Molly Macauley, Resources for the Future
  • James Sizemore, FAA
  • John Walker, RTCA SC-203
  • Dyke Weatherington, DoD/OSD
integration of unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system

Integration of Unmanned Aircraft into the National Airspace System

A Project Course by

Carnegie Mellon University

Dept. of Engineering and Public Policy

Dept. of Social and Decision Sciences

March 5, 2007

purpose of cmu project courses in technology and policy
Purpose of CMU Project Courses in Technology and Policy
  • Analyze a “real world” policy problem involving technology
  • Combine diverse information and analytic frameworks to derive policy insights
  • Learning objectives:
    • Problem decomposition, structuring and formulation
    • Interdisciplinary problem solving
    • Communication
    • Teamwork
contributors to our uas project
Contributors to our UAS project
  • 20 undergraduates majoring in:
    • Engineering
    • Social Science
    • Business Administration
  • 3 Ph.D. student managers
  • 3 faculty advisors
  • Expert panel review
role of expert review panel
Role of Expert Review Panel
  • At mid-semester:
    • Review project team’s progress and plans
      • Suggest changes in project direction
      • Suggest better ways to obtain data and conduct analysis
  • At semester’s end:
    • Provide feedback on draft of final report
background for this project
Background for this Project
  • Increasing demand for UASs
    • Military (many current uses)
    • Civilian (many potential uses)
  • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is developing a roadmap for integrating UASs into the NAS
  • A few of the issues to be addressed:
    • Safety and reliability
    • Public acceptability
    • Market viability
project strategy
Project Strategy
  • Pursue a set of analyses that will advance understanding of the UAS-NAS integration problem, making best use of the skills of project members, while being realistic about the project's resource and time constraints
analysis teams
Analysis Teams
  • Technology and Risk
    • What are the regulatory implications of different approaches to “equivalent level of safety?”
  • Public Awareness and Perception
    • Are risks of UAS of greater public concern than risks of manned aircraft?
  • Economics
    • How cost-effective are UASs compared to alternative means of providing the same service?
  • Governance
    • How can the current system for deliberation and decision-making on UAS access be improved?
technology and risk

Technology and Risk

Team Members

Samiah Akhtar

Jon Cornell

Nicole Hayward

Will Kim

Nick Misek

Doug Robl

Manager

Leonardo Reyes-Gonzalez

outline
Outline
  • Issues that we plan to address
  • Our approach
  • Deliverables
issues to be addressed
Issues to be addressed

1. What are the implications of FAA’s “equivalent level of safety” (ELOS) goal for target UAS failure rates?

2. What are current UAS failure rates and how much can they be reduced by safety technologies such as transponders, see and avoid capacity, ADS-B transceivers, AN hardware, etc?

3. How can the FAA/industry measure and track the safety performance of unmanned aircraft?

1 implications of equivalent level of safety
1. Implications of Equivalent Level of Safety
  • ELOS: FAA’s goal is that risks to people in the air and on the ground from unmanned aircraft must be no greater than those from manned aircraft.
  • Practical Interpretation: “Equal” risk means equal number of catastrophic events nationwide. Why?
    • Low probability events causing large numbers of casualties have been most important drivers of policy
    • e.g. 1956 Airplane collision over Grand Canyon
1 implications of equivalent level of safety15
1. Implications of Equivalent Level of Safety

UA catastrophic risk model

Catastrophes caused by midair collision

Catastrophes caused by UAS malfunction

Annual UA catastrophes

+

=

Baseline annual manned catastrophes

State and

control variables

slide16

UA catastrophic risk model

Midair collision

catastrophe rate

Wingspan & mass

# of UAs in airspace

# of other vehicles in airspace

Population flying

Population density on ground

ELOS

constraint:

Catastrophes

per year for

manned

aircraft

Malfunction

catastrophe rate

Mass

# of UAs in airspace

Reliability (Failures/Hr*)

Population density on ground

*Office of the Secretary of Defense. Unmanned Air Vehicle Reliability Study. Feb 2003.

2 technologies to mitigate risk
2. Technologies to Mitigate Risk
  • How much can a given technology reduce risk per flight hour below the status quo?
  • Transponders, see and avoid capacity, ADS-B, AN hardware, flight-real operator consoles.

http://www.competitionaircraft.com/ultralight-aircraft-parts.html

http://www.americanchampionsales.com/Assets/Images/ACA%20options/MVC-834F_JPG.jpg

2 technologies to mitigate risk18
2. Technologies to Mitigate Risk
  • Identify main causes of failure gap between UAS and manned aircraft (e.g., human factors, equipment failure)
  • Assess potential of given technology to reduce particular failure modes

from Weatherington 2006

3 tracking uas safety incidents
3. Tracking UAS safety incidents
  • Nuclear power industry vastly improved safety culture after TMI by sharing and analyzing safety information
  • For the UAS industry, what kinds of information collection, sharing, and analysis is feasible?
  • Accessible to FAA? to the public?
  • Voluntary or regulatory mandate?
intended deliverables
Intended Deliverables
  • Analysis of how different UA flight variables (e.g. numbers, size, failure rates, population flown over) can be varied to achieve the ELOS goal
  • Description of the latest UAS technologies to mitigate risk, and estimates of their effectiveness
  • A discussion of alternative safety incident reporting systems
review panel input
Review Panel Input
  • How significant is catastrophe rate as the ultimate driver of aviation safety performance?
  • Which safety technologies are most promising for large UAs? Small UAs?
  • How are accident and near-accident data currently collected for UASs?
public awareness and perception

Public Awareness and Perception

Team Members

Darian Ghorbi

Jenny Kim

Mark Peterson

Laura Seitz

Patrick Snyder

Manager

Pete Tengtrakul

statement of purpose
Statement of Purpose
  • Add the element of public perception to the UAS-NAS discussions
  • Motivation: the fact that there has never been a formal presentation of public perception on the topic
  • Findings: useful for the creation of regulations
objectives
Objectives
  • Compare public perceptions of the risks of manned and unmanned aircraft
  • Find demographic groups with certain risk/benefit patterns
  • Research implications of opinions regarding UASs
  • Create and administer survey to aid in completing objectives
hypotheses
Hypotheses
  • Autonomous vs. Remotely Piloted

- Autonomous perceived as more risky

  • Ground vs. Air

- UASs perceived as more risky in air

  • Prior Knowledge vs. Risk Perception

- Prior knowledge, associate less risk

  • Benefit vs. Risk Perception

- Higher benefit, lower risk

  • Education vs. Risk Perception

- Technical education, associate less risk

  • Age vs. Risk Perception

- Older demographics more cautious

  • Frequency of Flight

- Arguments for both sides

layout of survey
Layout of Survey
  • First Page
    • Provide information about UASs
      • Autonomous
      • Remotely Operated
    • Gauge previous knowledge
      • Source
layout of survey27
Layout of Survey
  • Application
  • Traffic Monitoring
  • Pipeline Monitoring
  • Disaster Relief
  • Border Patrol
  • Agriculture Monitoring
  • Questions
  • Quick Response
  • Benefit
    • Stakeholder
    • Public
  • Risk
    • Ground
    • Air
  • 7-Point Scale
    • 1 - Much Less
    • 4 - Same
    • 7 - Much More

Picture of UAS application

  • Description of UAS
  • Physical Information
  • Current Application
layout of survey28
Layout of Survey
  • Last Page
    • Demographics
      • Gender
      • Age
      • Education
      • Frequency of Flight
      • Voting (identify opinions of those that are politically engaged)
      • Pilot (may have drastically different opinions)
executing surveys
Executing Surveys
  • Method
    • In person
  • Potential Locations
    • Pittsburgh Shopping Malls
  • Incentives
    • Raffle, Carnegie Mellon trinkets, $2 Bills
  • Quantity Desired
    • ~300 surveys needed for adequate statistical power to determine the different risks and benefits
sample results
Sample Results

"Perceived Risk of UASs used in Border Patrol application, by age demographic”

**Not real data, created to illustrate analysis

sample results31
Sample Results

"Perceived Risks between Remotely Operated and Autonomous UAS applications"

**Not real data, created to illustrate analysis

review panel input32
Review Panel Input
  • Which relationships are of most interest?
  • Any attributes of subjects or UASs overlooked?
  • How will this information be useful in making decisions?
  • Methods of assessment other than survey?
economic perspective

Economic Perspective

Team Members

Reiko Baugham

Brad Brown

Feng Deng

Nathan Diorio-Toth

Victoria Morton

Manager

Ryan Kurlinski

outline34
Outline
  • Purpose Statement
  • Goals
  • UAS Applications
  • Preliminary Cost Model
  • Problems/Issues
  • The Next Step
  • Questions
purpose statement
Purpose Statement
  • Assessing the market viability of specific UAS applications using an analysis of relative cost effectiveness
  • Analyzing how different regulatory measures could affect costs and therefore the viability of a UAS market for a particular application
goals
Goals
  • Develop UAS cost model
    • Capital vs. Operating costs
    • Varying UAS sizes
    • Compare with both ground based and aerial alternatives
  • Determine appropriate measure of cost effectiveness
  • Apply cost model to chosen applications to assess market viability
  • Identify and examine areas of cost model most sensitive to change
    • Different regulatory measures
    • Improvements to technology
uas applications
UAS Applications
  • Animal tracking
  • Border Patrol
  • Local surveillance
  • Pipeline monitoring
  • Traffic monitoring
  • Weather reconnaissance

Source: www.cpb.gov

preliminary cost model
Preliminary Cost Model

Adapted from a presentation by Ronald Schaefer

preliminary cost model39
Preliminary Cost Model
  • Equipment Manufacture
    • Basic aircraft (no additional equipment)
    • Ground control station
    • Support vehicle
    • Additional communication hardware/satcom rental
  • System Operation and Maintenance
  • Manpower
    • Training
    • Salary
  • Mission Related Expenses
    • Insurance
    • Task specific equipment (special sensors)
  • Fuel
  • Miscellaneous/Other
problems issues
Problems/Issues
  • Cost data is hard to get
    • Many manufacturers are unwilling to disclose specific cost information
      • Government contract confidentiality
      • Market confidentiality
      • Nefarious uses
      • Not a potential client
  • Developing detailed cost model
    • Is anything missing?
the next step
The Next Step
  • Add more detail to the cost model
    • Make more application specific
  • Obtain more cost data for UAS and their alternatives for each application
  • Determine effectiveness measures for each application
    • Determine if cost effectiveness is best measure to use or if there is a better alternative
review panel input42
Review Panel Input
  • Where else do we look for cost data?
    • Specific people, organizations, publications?
  • Is our cost model complete?
    • Any broad categories missing?
    • Any important sub-categories missing?
  • Are there alternative measures to cost effectiveness?
    • Allow to better or more easily assess market viability?
  • What are good effectiveness measures for our chosen applications?
governance

Governance

Team Members

Nora Darcher

Norma Espinosa

Scott Fortune

Andrea Fuller

Managers

Keith Florig

Leonardo Reyes-Gonzalez

purpose and goal
Purpose and Goal
  • Group purpose is to analyze the current system of governance regarding UAS integration and ultimately make recommendations to improve the system considering the principles of good governance
  • Goal is to advance discussion on whether and how to integrate into the NAS
principles of good governance
Principles of Good Governance
  • 8 Characteristics of Good Governance

Source: http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp

stakeholders
Stakeholders
  • Identify:
    • stakeholders as well as their roles and objectives
    • alliances and competitors
    • channels and conventions of interaction
  • Goal is to gain an understanding of how the governance system for the airspace functions
roadblock analysis
Roadblock Analysis
  • Analyze system to determine roadblocks to UAS integration
  • Organize roadblocks:
    • First categorize list:
      • Technological – Sense and avoid
      • Organizational – Certification standards
      • Infrastructural – Air traffic control technology
      • Public Concern – Privacy infringement and safety
roadblock analysis cont d
Roadblock Analysis (cont’d)
    • Next prioritize list
      • Most important to solve
      • Easiest to solve
  • Perform historical analysis
    • Introduction of ultralights
      • Exempt from many aircraft standards
      • No license or training required for pilots
expected results
Expected Results
  • Make recommendations to address issues on the list by improving “governance system”
    • Possible recommendations include:
      • Funding initiatives
        • Broader stakeholder participation
        • Database development and information sharing
        • Increased staffing
      • Need for outside help or advice
        • Providing technical assistance
      • Specific policy initiatives
        • Creation of NTSB-type agency for UAS crashes
review panel input51
Review Panel Input
  • Are there any up and coming initiatives in UAS governance?
  • Which dimensions of governance are most in need of improvement (e.g., transparency, availability of channels for stakeholder deliberation)?
technology risk questions
Technology & Risk Questions
  • How significant is catastrophe rate as the ultimate driver of aviation safety performance?
  • Which safety technologies are most promising for large UAs? Small UAs?
  • How are accident and near-accident data currently collected for UASs?
public perception questions
Public Perception Questions
  • Which relationships are of most interest?
  • Any attributes of subjects or UASs overlooked?
  • How will this information be useful in making decisions?
  • Methods of assessment other than survey?
economic questions
Economic Questions
  • Where else do we look for cost data?
    • Specific people, organizations, publications?
  • Is our cost model complete?
    • Any broad categories missing?
    • Any important sub-categories missing?
  • Are there alternative measures to cost effectiveness?
    • Allow to better or more easily assess market viability?
  • What are good effectiveness measures for our chosen applications?
governance questions
Governance Questions
  • Are there any up and coming initiatives in UAS governance?
  • Which dimensions of governance are most in need of improvement (e.g., transparency, availability of channels for stakeholder deliberation)?