Module 9 - Case Analysis Effectiveness (ASCI 530)

Of all the classes I have completed towards earning my Master’s degree, this by far was the most challenging. This was not due to the difficulty of the assignments, but rather the vast inexperience I have with unmanned aircraft. With that said, I have honestly learned the most from this class through the case analysis. The case analysis allowed me to dive deep and research UAS in a way I would never have (other than watching things blow up on YouTube).

Currently, I am a satellite system operator. In other words, I ensure satellites are healthy and stay in orbit. As the technology of UAS advances and evolves, it will be the use of satellites that assist along the way. However, as of right now the UAS information I learned through the case analysis does not have any utility in my line of work. But in the next year or so, I plan to transition over and become a pilot of unmanned aircraft, or as the U.S. Air Force refers to it, RPA platforms. Knowing this, I purposely steered the research of the case analysis in the direction of the military so I can expand my knowledge and understanding of the field. In this future realm, I fully expect to use all that I have gained from the case analysis (this includes writing capability) to aid in my ability to operate in this relatively new field. The next few years will see an explosion of UAS. My hope is, with the knowledge I have now, I can make a difference in the evolution of the next generations of UAS by providing key information as to why aviation human factor principles must be embedded in the design of the control station.

If given the opportunity to improve the case analysis, I would alter the multimedia project and add more peer-to-peer collaboration. The multimedia project was an interesting way for me to creatively display the case analysis project onto PowerPoint slides to the instructor. However, I feel it did not add to the learning process. As a possible solution, I suggest providing the presentation to the entire class, and perhaps let them grade it. I really appreciated the feedback from my peers on the case analysis draft. Additionally, I liked being able to read their drafts. But, it was the draft. If all students prepared a case analysis presentation for the class, we all could learn much more about the issues with UAS and possible solutions.

Bottom line: I liked the Case Analysis tool. The project allowed me to explore UAS in a way I would not have without the structure and guidance. There are two minor things I would recommend in the future: alter the multimedia project and include more peer-to-peer collaboration.

Module 7 - Request for Proposal (ASCI 530)

MISSION
For the second time in a little over 10 years, the state of Louisiana has been hit hard by flooding. Since the second flooding, which began in early August of 2016, the Louisiana National Guard has been diligently working to provide emergency flood response aid. One area of aid the Louisiana National Guard has been aggressively focused on is the search and rescue of people and animals. To date the Louisiana National Guard has rescued 11,085 people and 1,400 animals (Louisiana National Guard, 2016). They were able to achieve this through their use of various boats, automobiles and helicopters. Despite the fleet of vehicles, the Louisiana National Guard has they are still unable to access certain areas due to vast areas of dangerous terrain. This is where unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs can assist. UAVs are capable of flying into dangerous terrain, and by using various onboard payloads, can locate victims in hard to reach or difficult to see places. One such example of a UAV assisting with search and rescue happened in 2013. In early May of 2013, a Canadian man was driving on an icy road at night when his vehicle went off the road (Kelly, 2013). The Royal Canadian Mounted Police attempted to use night vision goggles and a helicopter to locate the man, but they were unsuccessful because of the environment in which they were looking. Fortunately, the emergency responders were able to employ an unmanned aircraft with an infrared camera, which was able to detect the man's and point responders in the right location to rescue him (Kelly, 2013).

Based on the evidence of the usefulness of UAVs in search and rescue, the Louisiana National Guard has contracted Green Lantern Aviation to design a UAV to meet their search and rescue needs.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND DECISIONS
In order to design the most efficient UAV for the Louisiana National Guard, there are some design considerations and decisions that must be made. First, in order to prevent the cost and time of designing an unmanned aerial system or UAS from the ground up, most of the components of the UAS will be acquired commercially off the shelf. The aircraft itself will be a form of a quadcopter, similar to Microdrones MD4-100 (Microdrones, n.d.). This type of aircraft will provide the best capability for the Louisiana National Guard to hover and perform agile maneuvering in small spaces to search for people and animals (Arain & Moeini, 2016). However, in order for all the components to work, each system module (e.g. C2, Payload, Data-link, etc.) must be designed/acquired with a plug and play mindset. By keeping down the cost it will allow the Louisiana National Guard to purchase more UAS to provide the best coverage during national disasters, such as flooding.

Another design decision/consideration are the dual cameras onboard the UAV. There will be a daytime camera, capable of a 1080p resolution. There will also be an IR camera which will have at least a 640p resolution. The resolution on the IR camera can be lower than the daytime camera because the sensitivity of the IR camera can be adjusted depending on the UAV surroundings (e.g. smoke, bodies of water, dry land, etc.). However, regardless of the camera, the control station will be able to easily switch between both while providing the operator the ability to overlay map and GPS data over the video feed.
Furthermore, the entire UAS will be designed to have multiple levels of redundancy. This includes the ability to change out components without affecting operability and multiple ways to control the aircraft. One novel feature to the redundancy will be the emergency control unit. In the case of an extreme in-flight emergency, operators will be able to control the aircraft, but only the aircraft, back to a rescue location.

Lastly, because the UAS is an aircraft at its core, there are some licensing/certification decisions that must be made. They are:

• The UAS will be operating only within the U.S. (Some countries require permission before unmanned aircraft can operate at all, such as Nepal (Ferris-Rotman, 2015). Therefore the Louisiana National Guard will refrain from providing the UAS to other nations.
• The UAS will not be operating in the national airspace, however, it will be partnered with an existing emergency responder entity that has legally obtained a certificate of authorization to operate UAS

Baseline Requirements
1    Command & Control (C2)   1.1    Shall be capable of manual and autonomous operation
      1.1.1    [Derived requirement] – C2 control station shall provide an input method for operator to set parameters for autonomous operation (e.g. required altitude, heading, etc.)
      1.1.2     [Derived requirement] – C2 control station shall have specific buttons/switches that allow operator to switch between manual and autonomous mode
      1.1.3    [Derived requirement] – C2 control station shall display the mode the aircraft is currently in.
   1.2    Shall provide redundant flight control to prevent flyway
      1.2.1    [Derived requirement] – C2 shall provide more than one method to operate the air vehicle (e.g. control via a laptop computer or joystick).
      1.2.2    [Derived requirement] – C2 shall provide the ability to quickly swap out components (e.g. laptops, control surfaces, batteries, etc.) without affecting operations.
      1.2.3    [Derived requirement] – C2 shall provide connectivity to an emergency control unit in case the main GCS becomes inoperable
   1.3    Shall visually depict telemetry of air vehicle element
      1.3.1    [Derived requirement] – C2 control station shall provide the standard six-pack instrumentation (i.e. altitude indicator, heading indicator, airspeed indicator, vertical speed indicator, turn coordinator, attitude indicator)
      1.3.2    [Derived requirement] – C2 control station shall provide state of health information (e.g. voltage, amperage, internal temperature, external temperature, etc.)
   1.4    Shall visually depict payload sensor views
      1.4.1    [Derived requirement] – C2 control station shall provide digital detail enhancement (i.e. digital video stabilization, digital zoom, etc)
      1.4.2    [Derived requirement] – C2 control station shall have a command which will switch between Daytime and IR camera
      1.4.3    [Derived requirement] – C2 control station shall be able to overlay data over the payload sensor view (e.g. radiometric, position/map, etc.)

2     Payload
   2.1    Shall be capable of color daytime video operation up to 500 feet AGL
      2.1.1    [Derived requirement] – Daytime camera shall provide a video resolution of at least 1280 x 720
      2.1.2    [Derived requirement] – Daytime camera shall provide a video frame rate of 60 fps
   2.2    Shall be capable of infrared (IR) video operation to 500 feet AGL
      2.2.1    [Derived requirement] – IR camera shall provide a video resolution of at least 640 x 512.
      2.2.2    [Derived requirement] – IR camera shall provide a video frame rate of 30 fps.
      2.2.3    [Derived requirement] – IR camera shall be able to manually set the temperature sensitivity via GCS software.
   2.3    Shall be interoperable with C2 and data-link
      2.3.1    [Derived requirement] – Payload shall be connected directly to  the air vehicle via a plug and play wiring harness
      2.3.2    [Derived requirement] – Payload shall encode video and auditory data in a format that requires the least amount of bandwidth (e.g. MP4)
      2.3.3    [Derived requirement] – Payload shall be operated through the GCS using open source software.
   2.4    Shall use power provided by air vehicle element
      2.4.1    [Derived requirement] – Payload shall match the type of electrical system as the air vehicle element (i.e. AC or DC)
      2.4.2    [Derived requirement] – Payload shall require no more than 15 volts

3    Data Link (communications)
   3.1    Shall be capable of communication range exceeding two miles visual line of sight (VLOS)
      3.1.1    [Derived requirement] – The data link shall primarily utilize HF radio transmission
   3.2    Shall provide redundant communication capability (backup) for C2
      3.2.1    [Derived requirement] – The data link shall broadcast data via at least three antennas
      3.2.2    [Derived requirement] – The data link shall have at least one medium frequency / low power antenna
      3.2.3    [Derived requirement] – The data link shall contain be operable on at least 5 different frequencies.
   3.3    Shall use power provided by air vehicle element
      3.3.1    [Derived requirement] – The data link shall require no more than 3 volts
      3.3.2    [Derived requirement] – The data link shall have a dedicated battery backup

Baseline Testing
1.    Command & Control (C2)
   1.1.    Test control station ability to control aircraft using the various control methods
   1.2.    Test “swap-ability” of various components (e.g. laptops, control surfaces, batteries, etc.) without affecting operations.
   1.3.    Verify control station’s presentation of required aircraft telemetry
   1.4.    Verify control station’s ability to display and control the payloads
   1.5.    Verify human factor issues with C2 operation (e.g. button placement, GUI colors, etc.)

2.    Payload
   2.1.    Test ability to control both cameras from control station
   2.2.    Test average payload video and audio bandwidth output
   2.3.    Verify resolution and frame rate of daytime and IR cameras

3.    Data Link (communications)
   3.1.    Test operability of all antennas
   3.2.    Test maximum range of aircraft in normal conditions
   3.3.    Test maximum range of aircraft under less-than-ideal conditions (i.e. rain, snow, poor terrain)
   3.4.    Test backup frequency aircraft control capability
   3.5.    Verify backup battery ability to power low power telemetry transmissions

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
In order to provide the best product in the least amount of time to the Louisiana National Guard, a prototype model of system development will be used. This model will allow the Green Lantern Aviation designers the opportunity to truly understand what the Louisiana National Guard UAV requirements are. Additionally, by building a prototype, and then refining the prototype, the Louisiana National Guard can identify what functionality and capability they actually need from the aircraft. While there are disadvantages to using this model; the disadvantages should be minimal due to the specific nature of the search and rescue request. Based on initial estimates, Green Lantern Aviation believes that the development of the search and rescue UAS should take approximately 13 months. This is due to through ground testing of the control station software, data link operability and payload capability. The testing strategy is to individually test the various subsystems, then test their ability to integrate as a system, and then finally certify the entire system in accordance with the Louisiana National Guard’s requirements and FAA policy.

Phase of Development                                                           Approximate Time Frame
System Development                                                                          4 Months
Ground Testing (subsystem and integration testing)                          6 Months
In-Flight Testing (system certification)                                              3 Months

References
Arain, F., & Moeini, S. (2016). Leveraging on Unmanned Ariel Vehicle (UAV) for Effective Emergency Response and Disaster Management. World Conference on Disaster Management (pp. 1 - 11). Toronto: Alberta Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://pmsymposium.umd.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Arian_Moeini.pdf
Baban, N. S. (2013, June). Processing Models Of SDLC . Airoli, Navi Mumbai, India.
Ferris-Rotman, A. (2015, May 07). How Drones Are Helping Nepal Recover From The Earthquake. Retrieved from Huffington Post.com: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/07/nepal-earthquake-drones_n_7232764.html
Kelly, H. (2013, May 23). Drones: The future of disaster response. Retrieved from CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/23/tech/drones-the-future-of-disaster-response/
Louisiana National Guard. (2016, August 18). Louisiana National Guard Continues Flood Response Missions. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Defense: http://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/918383/louisiana-national-guard-continues-flood-response-missions
Microdrones. (n.d.). Microdrones MD4-1000: Robust and Powerful UAV Model. Retrieved from Micro Drones: https://www.microdrones.com/en/products/md4-1000/

Module 5 - UAS Mission (ASCI 530)

   

     Since the Coast Guards inception in 1790, it has been charged with protecting the nation’s waterways and to prevent the illegal import of items into the nation. This daunting task does require a lot of manpower, good intelligence and a bit of luck. Of all the missions that the Coast Guard is responsible for, it is law enforcement, specifically the tracking and interdiction of unregulated items, which is the most challenging to conduct. It is the most difficult because of the vast area the Coast Guard must patrol, and the reach they have if suspicious activity is detected. To ease the burden of tracking and stopping illegal activity like drug smuggling in all of the country’s waterways, the Coast Guard is actively looking at incorporating unmanned aerial systems into their fleet of aircraft. Unmanned aircraft provide the Coast Guard a cost effective solution to have a persistent eye in the sky in order to expand maritime domain awareness and proliferate valuable data and images regarding maritime hazards and threats (U.S. Coast Guard, 2016). According to an April 2016 article in Navy Times by Meghann Myers, the Coast Guard is not picky in terms of a fixed-wing or rotary-wing unmanned aircraft, they simply need a UAS that can be operated for 12 hours and has the capability to operate at an altitude of roughly 5,000 ft. (Myers, 2016). Due to the different locations, the UAS may have to travel, the Coast Guard will need an unmanned platform capable of incorporating various payload packages and be able to operate in bad weather. Specifically, the chosen unmanned platform will need to be equipped with an electro-optical, thermal and synthetic aperture radar camera payload package (Austin, 2010, p. 275). With regards to the law enforcement of the United States’ waterways, three particular unmanned aerial vehicles may be of assistance to the Coast Guard. They are the MQ-1 Predator, the MQ-8C Fire Scout, and the ScanEagle. When the term UAS is used in conjunction with law enforcement and surveillance, one the first platforms that come to mind is the MQ-1 Predator.
    The MQ-1 Predator is a proven long endurance, medium altitude aircraft. The aircraft more than achieves the design requirements for the Coast Guard’s law enforcement mission an operating altitude of 25,000ft and a range of 400 nm (Kable, 2016). Additionally, the MQ-1 Predator is capable of over 40 hours of operation time. Through the use of line-of-sight radio communication and beyond line-of-sight satellite communication, this platform can be operated from a variety of locations (Kable, 2016). Furthermore, the MQ-1 Predator is capable of carrying the required camera payloads. However, considering the current fiscal constraints of the U.S. government, the Coast Guard is looking for an unmanned platform that can do much more than one mission of law enforcement. Sadly, the MQ-1 Predator is only capable of accomplishing a few of the Coast Guard missions. This is where the MQ-8 Fire Scout may have the advantage.
    The MQ-8 Fire Scout is a multipurpose and flexible platform. The MQ-8 Fire Scout is a rotary-wing unmanned platform capable of operating at altitudes as high as 16,000 ft. (Northrop Grumman, 2015). The platform is able to operate for 12 hours with an approximate range of 1,227 nautical miles (Northrop Grumman, 2015). Similar to the MQ-1 Predator, the MQ-8 Fire Scout is also able to carry a vast assortment of payload sensors. Despite the different types of payload sensors the aircraft can carry, the MQ-8 Fire Scout can easily operate from land bases or sea-going vessels. This flexibility gives the platform the ability to accomplish most of the missions the Coast Guard has. Another, unmanned platform that may serve as a solution to the Coast Guard is the ScanEagle.
    The ScanEagle is a tried and tested medium-range unmanned aircraft. The ScanEagle is capable of both land and sea launch through the use of a pneumatically operated catapult system can increase the law enforcement flexibility for the Coast Guard. Additionally, the ScanEagle can operate for 25 plus hours with an approximate range of 1,500 nautical miles and operate at altitudes as high as 16,000 ft.  (Kable, 2016). The ScanEagle is a prime aircraft for the Coast Guard because of the “plug and play” nature of the payload packages. The payload is housed in the nose of the aircraft and can be changed out for another payload package in the matter of a few minutes. But before the Coast Guard decides which UAS to go with, they must determine what the benefits and challenges are with using UAS for law enforcement of U.S. waters.
If employed properly, unmanned aircraft provide the Coast Guard with a wide-ranging capability to provide law enforcement. Simply by adding unmanned aircraft to the fleet, the Coast Guard can extend the range/area the can patrol looking for illegal activity. In fact, in the early part of 2016, the Coast Guard was able to detect and track a drug-running submarine using a borrowed UAS from the U.S. Custom and Border Patrol (Myers, 2016). The use of borrowed UAS allowed the Coast Guard to surveille a larger area and respond with an armed cutter to enforce U.S. law. Despite the clear benefits of using unmanned aircraft, there are also clear challenges to using unmanned platforms for law enforcement.
The Coast Guard has a few challenges with the operation of UAS for as a tool to aid in law enforcement. At least within the bounds of U.S. airspace, the Coast Guard would currently have issues operating their UAS. This is due to the current rules limiting the use of unmanned aircraft within the national airspace, or NAS. Specifically for the Coast Guard, the potential to conduct surveillance at altitudes around 5,000 ft. creates a concern for manned aircraft which can see-and-avoid other aircraft. On a different note, the U.S. military currently uses armed UAS to detect, track and engage various targets around the globe. For the Coast Guard, the potential exists for them to do the same with any of the above-mentioned unmanned aircraft. Especially, considering that many of the Coast Guard surveillance areas may overlap with other sovereign nations, this may be a potential challenge regarding international relations. Another series of challenges for the Coast Guard are the potential ethical concerns. Ethically, in addition to having armed unmanned platforms patrolling over U.S. airspace, there has been large concerns with law enforcement gathering blanket data and images of American citizens. This invasion of privacy has been the sensitive subject for all entities wishing to use UAS in a greater capacity. However, because the Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security, there may be extra worries over the concept of “big brother.”

Module 4 - UAS in the NAS (ASCI 530)

Unmanned Aerial Systems Integrated Into National Airspace System

(Hampton, 2014)

          Under the current Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA, rules all manned aircraft are required to be able to visually identify other aircraft in the airspace whenever weather conditions permit. Furthermore, even aircraft operating under instrument flight rules must be able to look out for other aircraft as they maneuver around the airspace (Hobbs, 2010, p. 521). However, for unmanned aircraft, this is a problem. As such, the FAA has determined that UAS must be able to prove they have a satisfactory level of technology top match a “sense & avoid” capability in manned aircraft. However, the issues with integrating UAS into the NAS are not solely limited to sense and avoid issues. According to a FAA report on the “Progress and Challenges in Integrating Unmanned Aircraft Systems into the National Airspace System,” there are three barriers preventing the FAA from fully integrating UAS into the NAS today. The barriers are a lack of mature detect-and-avoid technology to avoid collisions, a lack of adequate control and communications technology, and lastly a lack of regulatory requirements or standards for UAS design certification, pilot and crew qualifications, ground control stations, and command and   control reliability (Hampton, 2014, p. 4). To further complicate this issue, the three barriers mentioned by the FAA are different depending on the type/size of the UAS.
          Unmanned aircraft are typically categorized into five distinct categories based on weight. Furthermore, each category of UAS has a specific role in which they are utilized. Category 1 (micro) and category 2 (small) unmanned aircraft are more commonly used in low altitude areas and typically outside of controlled airspace (Hobbs, 2010, p. 521). As long as the category 1 and category 2 aircraft are flown in visual range, the pilot, who is still external of the aircraft, can adequately see-and-avoid other aircraft. The issue for category 1 and category 2 aircraft arises when the aircraft is beyond visual range. Australia has attempted to solve this problem for category 1 and category 2 aircraft by putting restrictions on the locations and maximum altitude these aircraft can operate (Hobbs, p. 522). As for category 3, category 4 and category 5, these aircraft operate at higher altitudes and will move between non-controlled and controlled airspace. Additionally, these aircraft will typically operate under instrument flight rules. Due to the fact that these aircraft are generally operated beyond visual range, there may be communication delays or issues between the response of the pilot and the action taken by the aircraft. In an effort to find a solution, there has been chatter about integrating the technology to make these aircraft visible to air traffic control through a transponder (Hobbs, 2010). However, this technology was designed to aid detect-and-avoid not replace it. So the question is… is there current or developing technology that can aid in the integration of unmanned platforms into the NAS?
          The short answer is yes. Currently, NASA and the FAA are working on the “NextGen” of Air Traffic Control. The new system is a patent-pending command and control system capable of providing pilots, crew and other personnel collision warnings and real-time air traffic and weather information (Squires & Epperson, 2016). Lastly, this technology has already been tested in the NAS using NASA’s fleet of Predator B or Ikhana aircraft (Squires & Epperson). The benefit to this system is that it not only integrates UAS into the NAS, it also greatly enhances the capabilities of manned aircraft operating in the NAS.
          The rapid pace in which UAS is being employed is dramatically changing the air domain. As the true capability and benefits to unmanned aircraft are realized, the rules, regulations, and technology holding UAS back must evolve. This is where the NAS is right now. UAS is on the cusp of the next big evolutionary breakthrough but is hampered by the barriers to its integration into the NAS. Hopefully, with NASA and the FAA aggressively working on solutions, the future of UAS will be able to reach its full potential. 
          The aggressive reemergence of unmanned aerial systems, or UAS, has dramatically altered the air domain. One major area in the process of being altered is the integration of unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system or NAS. As it stands right now, integrating unmanned aircraft into the NAS is much more difficult than it sounds. To truly understand the issues behind integrating unmanned platforms into the NAS, three aspects of the issue must be looked at. First, what are the major issues with integrating UAS into the NAS. Secondly, what considerations must be taken for the various types/sizes of UAS. Lastly, is there current or developing technology that can aid in the integration of unmanned platforms into the NAS. As with any problem understanding that there is a problem is the first step in reaching a solution.
 

Module 2 - Weeding Out a Solution (ASCI 530)

Yamaha RMax helicopter Fertilizing Crop

(Curry, 2013)

          The Agro-Hawk company is currently developing a UAS platform for precision crop-dusting. However, the design of the UAS is currently halted due to weight issues. Unfortunately, the Payload delivery team and the Guidance, Navigation & Control (GNC) team each have their particular systems beyond the original weight budget they were allowed. This is due to the team’s efforts to save costs by utilizing off-the-shelf hardware/software to complete their portions of the UAS project. As the lead Systems Engineer, it is crucial at times to ensure a design project not only stays on task but achieves the most if not all of the desired results. Despite this, however, the Systems Engineer must consider added cost and the potential for further delays when attempting to rectify the weight issue. With that said in order to carry the sufficient amount of fertilizer the weight of the two subsystems must be reduced. In order to help both teams reach their particular weight goals, each team will be visited and assisted individually. Due to the customer’s high interest in the payload delivery systems, this is the area that will be assisted first.
          In the current economic state of the country, being able to correctly spray fertilizer over a specified area is of high importance to customers. Especially in hard to reach and hazardous farming areas such as Napa valley, it is imperative that no fertilizer is wasted. Therefore, the payload delivery team must ensure the fertilizer is adequately dispersed across the required area. However, in the interest of saving weight perhaps the payload delivery team can look at the way the fertilizer is dispensed. For the most part, most crops are sprayed using a spray applicator system. These systems are capable of spraying territory at different speeds, which in turn, defines the rate and size of an area the platform can spray. Therefore, if the Payload team were to look at a lower speed spray applicator system, perhaps weight can be saved from having a less powerful motor. In fact, the University of California at Davis is currently experimenting with a crop dusting platform which sprays at 15 mph (Szondy, 2013). This change in motor size or motor capability should be enough to reduce the weight of the payload delivery system back down to acceptable weight. While the weight savings for the Payload team may be significant, it is the GCS team that may have the potential to save the most weight.
          Especially in an unmanned aerial platform, it is imperative that the vehicle is able to fly correctly. However, when the systems required to fly the aircraft correctly prevent the aircraft from flying correctly there is a problem. With regards to controlling the aircraft, there are many options available to the team. One consideration is the removal of the onboard computers and relying on a pilot within line-of-sight of the aircraft. Unfortunately, this process may raise costs due to the acquisition of a qualified individual to operate the vehicle. A better feasible solution is to alter the guidance and navigation method of the aircraft. Typically, agriculture machines are guided and navigated by GPS receivers. These machines often include computers which can correct for the lack of a third satellite lock (you need three GPS satellites for accurate navigation). However, if navigation by GPS is replaced by perimeter fences for electronic positioning, this will not only increase the accuracy of the guidance and navigation but significantly reduce the required equipment (Austin, 2010, p. 274).
          In summary, it will be crucial to have both teams achieve the common goal of reducing the weight of their subsystems. The UAS that Agro-Hawk is developing will ensure farmland is adequately fertilized while keeping pilots away from terrain difficult to maneuver in as well as hazardous locations. The implementation of this UAS has the potential to greatly alter the future of crop dusting and agriculture as a whole.

Module 1 - History of UAS (ASCI 530)

          In the beginning, unmanned aerial systems (UAS) were designed to be target vehicles for training manned aircraft pilots and anti-aircraft gunners. Utilizing the relatively new application of radio transmission, these vehicles were expendable aircraft, typically air launched and recovered via a parachute. However, as time went on in the design and use of these systems, operators realized they may be able to use these “target drones” to solve current aviation problems with intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, or ISR.
          The first aircraft to be put to use in this manner was the AQM-34 Firebee in 1962 (Taylor, 2016). First designed in 1951, this modified target drone was used in a variety of operations which included photographic reconnaissance, electronic intelligence gathering, and radio communications monitoring (U.S. Air Force, 2015). The AQM-34 Firebee was launched from a modified C-130 and could fly a preprogrammed course or be manually flown by a pilot on the ground within line-of-sight. Considering this was an unmanned aircraft, this vehicle was capable of achieving remarkable subsonic speeds and operating at altitudes as high as 75,000 feet (U.S. Air Force, 2015). These capabilities were vital during the Vietnam War and over North Korea during the Korean War. Due to its small radar cross section, the AQM-34 Firebee was able to fly deep into severely defended territory and bring back clear images and even video (Taylor, 2016). Furthermore, at one point in the late 1960s, the AQM-34 Firebee was upgraded with sensors to detect electronic countermeasures in order to determine appropriate missile jamming techniques. Despite conducting more than 3,400 missions the AQM-34 Firebee could not reach its full potential due to limitations in technology. Issues such as a reliable radio uplink and downlink, as well as, issues with large single spectrum cameras would prevent the aircraft from developing further. It would take another 40 years before technology would catch up to the full vision of an unmanned ISR platform.

          In 1995, the intent of the AQM-34 Firebee was reimaged in the form of the RQ-4 Global Hawk. Maintaining many of the same design elements, the RQ-4 Global Hawk’s high altitude operation, as high as 65,000 feet, and small size keeps the aircraft fairly safe from surface-based defensive systems (U.S. Air Force, 2014). However, in the attempt to achieve the full potential of the UAS, the RQ-4 Global Hawk incorporated the new technology of integrated multispectral sensors, high-bandwidth satellite uplink and downlinks, and GPS receivers (Croft, 2005). The introduction of satellite communication links and GPS receivers allow operators much more freedom in locations where the aircraft can be controlled from, as well as, increasing the relative range in which the UAS can operate. Additionally, the RQ-4 Global Hawk learned from previous generations of UAS operations and incorporated a “crew” design to the operation of the UAS. The operation of the RQ-4 Global Hawk is broken into various crew positions, with the most innovative being the position of sensor operator. This position provides the capability to task/retask the sensor, update the collection plan in real time, initiate sensor calibration and monitor sensor status (Taylor, 2016). The incorporation of this position has not only dramatically changed how the UAS is operated it has radically altered the tactics in which the unmanned ISR platform can be utilized.

          The future of unmanned ISR looks promising. The capabilities of the technology have evolved greatly since the days of the Cold War. However, there is a long way to go before unmanned ISR platforms have reached the limit of their design. Currently, in most unmanned aircraft the issues faced are rooted in human factor issues. One such area is the notion that unmanned aircraft must be “flown.”  According to Kevin Williams in his 2004 Civil Aerospace Medical Institute report, unmanned aircraft of today are not “flown” through the air… they are “commanded” (Williams, 2006). The future of unmanned ISR aircraft, such as the RQ-4 Global Hawk, will rely more on a mindset change than continued upgrades to technology.

UAS Human Factors, Ethics and Morality

    The introduction of unmanned aircraft into the battlefield has dramatically changed the future of warfare. Unmanned aircraft technology has seen tremendous growth since the humble beginnings in WWII to the current iterations of the technology. However, as with the evolution of any new technology, there are some concerns. Therefore, in order to best know if unmanned aircraft should be used for remote warfare, there are a few things that must be explored. They are the advantages as well as disadvantages of unmanned aerial combat over manned aerial combat, and the projected future of unmanned aerial systems, or UAS. It is clear that UAS platforms bring a capability to the battlefield lacking in previous generations of warfare.
    From the dawn of its existence, UAS platforms have strived to alleviate the dull, dangerous, and difficult tasks away from manned platforms. Especially of recent, with the emergence of many types of UAS platforms, we have seen a significant evolution in the operational concept of UAS platforms, giving battlefield commanders more flexibility and options. The current conflicts in which the U.S. and coalition partners engage in is a type of counter-insurgency warfare. As such the surveillance and even engagement of enemy combatants is difficult due to the limitations manned aircraft have by having a pilot in the seat. These aircraft, while highly capable war machines… are incapable of persistent stare, to include before and after enemy combatant engagement (Neil, 2011). Furthermore, the technology in the majority of the military’s UAS platforms allows commanders to reduce the decision time between target acquisition and enemy engagement. For example, during Desert Storm, it would take at least five days and multiple aircraft to detect, relay, confirm, and engage a target (Callam, 2010). Today one MQ-1 Predator could accomplish that task in 5 minutes. These are only a few of the benefits gained from UAS platforms. Despite the benefits, removing the pilot from the flight deck does not make a perfect combat platform.
    As is seen regularly on the news, UAS platforms have some downsides. One of the largest issues is the high probability for crashes. According to the Elliott school of International Affairs at George Washington University, the Predator crashes 43 times per 100K flying hours compared to typical manned aircraft which crashes 2 times per 100K (Callam, 2010). Although the price of most UAS platforms is relatively cheaper than manned aircraft; the number of crashes does end up costing the government more in the long run. Another issue plaguing, UAS platforms are the handoff or aircraft control migration issues. Most UAS platforms have the capability to be controlled via beyond-line-of-sight communication links. The issue that arises is that these links are not 100% reliable. They can be jammed or lost due to terrain or weather (Callam, 2010). In the end, as pilots transfer control of aircraft between one ground control station to another, the loss of signal can and often does lead to mishaps. However, these are all known issues and engineers are actively working to find solutions.
    One such solution is to revolutionize what a UAS is. Up until recently, UAS platforms were relatively slow, had a limited range and were barely capable of thinking and acting for themselves. A new wave of UAS platforms aims to change all of this. They are called unmanned combat aerial vehicles, or UCAVs. These new platforms are faster and smarter than the previous generation. Furthermore, these UCAVs are only the beginning. In the next few years, we may see fleets of unmanned systems designed to operate together, bridging the gap where there may be vulnerabilities. For example, a squadron of UCAVs may be flying in an area controlled by a long-endurance UAS whose mission is to bridge the potential communication link gap between the UCAVs and the satellites in orbit. If these future technologies hold true the use of unmanned aircraft for remote warfare makes sense.
    As one can imagine, the use of new technology does bring fears and concern. What we need to be most concerned with is if these fears are valid or if they are simply fears of change. Unmanned aviation is at an evolutionary crossroads, similar to manned aircraft after WWII. We have the technology and the maturity to ensure that the next 50 years sees positive growth in the variation of technological evolution.

References
Callam, A. (2010). Drone Wars: Armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. International Affairs Review. George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/144
Neil, G. (2011, October 8). Why the future of air power belongs to unmanned systems. Retrieved from The Economist.com: http://www.economist.com/node/21531433

Case Analysis Effectiveness

As this ASCI 638 – Human Factors in Unmanned Aero Systems class comes to an end, I have realized that I have honestly learned the most about human factors of UAS through the Case Analysis tool. While the discussion and research topics were intriguing and thought-provoking; for an online class they don’t compare to what I would have gained from a face-to-face experience… the true perspectives of my peers. With that said, the Case Analysis tool essentially gave me a deep, well-rounded knowledge, comprehension, and application of UAS concepts. The Case Analysis tool allowed me to explore not only my topic handoff issues in UAS but the history and future of unmanned aviation. Seeing as though I started my Air Force career in aircraft maintenance (KC-135 Crew Chief) it is only fitting that I attempt to see how this experience will help me now and in the future, as well as, what could be improved upon with the Case Analysis tool to help future students.

Currently, I am a satellite system operator. In other words, I ensure, satellites are healthy and stay in orbit. As the technology of UAS advances and evolves, it will be the use of satellites that will assist along the way. All of the UAS platforms which use beyond line-of-sight commanding, use satellites to relay the signal between the ground control station, or GCS, and the aircraft itself. Right now, I make sure the satellite is there to relay the signal. In the recent years, the accurate position of satellites, as well as the health and safety of the satellite are much more of a concern, especially for constellations such as GPS and the various communication constellations. As an enlisted satellite system operator, it is sometimes challenging to understand the importance the work we do and how it contributes to signal recipients on the ground and in the air. However, like most of my space brethren, we are always looking for a challenge and the recent Air Force introduction of the enlisted unmanned pilot allows us to do just so.

In the next year or so, I plan to transition over and become a pilot of remotely piloted aircraft, or RPA, platforms. As such my Case Analysis tool was purposely steered in the direction of military UAS operations so I can expand my knowledge of the field. Currently, the Air Force is attempting to remedy the lack of interest and retainability in the RPA field by allowing the enlisted member to operate unmanned aircraft. What is particularly attractive to me is the desire to model the enlisted pilot program after the enlisted space operator program, of which I have extensive experience. With the knowledge gained from ASCI 638, especially the Case Analysis tool, my hope is I can be a sounding board for evolution and advancement of RPA operations for the Air Force. However, there are a few things that I feel that could be added to ASCI 638, which would have better prepare me for what is to come.

It is an honor to be able to provide recommendations to make ASCI 638 truly better for future students. If given the opportunity to improve the Case Analysis tool process, I would remove the multimedia project and add more peer-to-peer collaboration. The multimedia project was an interesting way for me to regurgitate my extensive Case Analysis project onto PowerPoint slides. But in the end… it did not add to the learning process. One thing that could be added in its place to greatly enhance the learning process is the collaboration with classmates. While I’m not entirely sure what this would look like, I do know I really appreciated the feedback from my peers on the Case Analysis tool draft. Additionally, I liked being able to read their drafts. This allowed me to increase my knowledge of UAS issues and gain some innovative perspectives on solutions.

All in all, I liked the Case Analysis tool. The project allowed me to explore UAS in a way I would not have without the structure and guidance. There are two minor things I would recommend in the future: remove the multimedia project and include more peer-to-peer collaboration. With these recommendations, ASCI 638 will hopefully be a very popular class.

UAS Crew Member Selection

            As is well known by most companies seeking entry into the National Airspace System, or NAS, any aircraft wishing to operate in the NAS must have a certified and registered aircraft, pilots who are licensed, and have operational approval by the FAA.  In the effort to remain in line with current and future federal law regarding the operation of unmanned aerial systems, or UAS, in the NAS; it is the recommendation of Brown Consulting Inc. that the Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated seek Section 333 Exemption in order to operate civil UAS in the NAS. The Section 333 Exemption, is a request to the U.S Sectary of Transportation asking for permission to operate in the NAS for commercial purposes (Federal Aviation Administration, 2016). Once requested, Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated can begin to seek qualified members to operate its UAS platforms.

            Each platform, the Insitu Scan Eagle and the Ikhana UAS, will each need a logistics support team, consisting of aircraft maintenance and equipment transportation. As for the operational crews, there will need to be enough operators to support the desired mission requirements, especially if round-the-clock operations are necessary. Each platform will have different operator hire requirements, however, prior to employment potential members must complete company CRM training and mission familiarization. Furthermore, prior to qualification both series of operational crews must be physically fit in order to reduce health related incidents during future active missions. Between the two UAS platforms, the Insitu Scan Eagle will need the least amount of experience but require the most company training.

            The Insitu Scan Eagle is a simple yet flexible unmanned aircraft, capable of many payload configurations. However, regardless of the all the aircraft configurations, Insitu’s Common open-mission Management Command and Control, or ICOMC2, allows one operator to control one or multiple vehicles from a single laptop workstation (Institu Inc., 2016). This means that Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated can keep this platform’s crew size to a maximum of one person. In order to hire the correct person for this operator position, a particular set of skills and requirements are needed. The minimum set of skills and requirements needed are:

·         A third-class Airman Medical Certificate

·         Bachelor’s degree in the aviation field

·         Experience and proficiency with basic Pilot/ATC phraseology

·         Excellent planning skills, including flight operations and airspace de-confliction

·         Experience with aviation safety rules and procedures

·         Excellent verbal and written communication skills

·         Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language.

These requirements were selected in order to attract the most capable individuals while adhering to FAA pilot regulations. Once individuals are identified as a potential hire, the Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated will need to conduct a basic to moderate flight aptitude test. This is to ensure the potential pilot operator has enough of an understanding of aviation principles in order to aid the automation conducted by the ICOMC2. Furthermore, based on the requirements Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated will need to work with or contract help from Insitu, or another capable agency, to train the selected aircraft operators on the initial operation of the Scan Eagle. Once trained by Insitu, Scan Eagle operators would then undergo a series of evaluations by Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated to ensure the operator is capable of operating the aircraft for environmental research needs. Lastly, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, it is highly recommended that Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated educate operators in CRM, pertinent operator refresher courses (e.g. simulator time, advanced operational courses, etc.) and any other professional development deemed necessary. In order to maximize the range and capability of the environmental research, Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated will also need to seek and hire capable Ikhana UAS operators.

            The Ikhana UAS is an unarmed variation of the MQ-1 Predator B, also known as the MQ-9 Reaper, UAS platform. This UAS is an extremely advanced platform, capable of carrying over 2K lbs. in payload equipment. Additionally, just like the Insitu Scan Eagle, the Ikhana is a flexible system capable of many scientific sensor and instrument configurations. However, because the Ikhana UAS at its core is still a MQ-1B/MQ-9, it utilizes a similar ground control station or GCS. The typical MQ-1B/MQ-9 GCS consists of two main operator positions, a pilot operator in the left seat and a sensor ball operator in the right seat. In some variations of the MQ-1B/MQ-9 GCS set up, an engineer or communication equipment expert sits toward the back of the GCS to aid in potential communication issues with the aircraft. For Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated’s purposes it is the recommendation of Brown Consulting Inc. that the engineer or communication equipment expert be part of the aforementioned logistics team and not part of the Ikhana UAS crew. Therefore, the conscious crew for Ikhana missions will be comprised of two people… the pilot operator and the sensor ball operator. In order to hire the most effective members for these positions, a particular set of skills and requirements will be needed. The minimum set of skills and requirements needed are:

·         Private pilot’s license w/ IFR ratings

·         A first-class medical certificate

·         At least 500 flight hours

·         Experience and proficiency with basic Pilot/ATC phraseology

·         Excellent planning skills, including flight operations and airspace de-confliction

·         Experience with aviation safety rules and procedures

·         Excellent verbal and written communication skills

·         Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language.

Due to the fact that the Ikhana UAS is capable of operating at 40,000 ft. above ground level, or operate in a Class A airspace, the pilot operator will need to have the appropriate training and flight ratings to operate in this airspace. Additionally, the pilot operator may potentially operate the aircraft using beyond line-of-sight satellite links, requiring much more flight experience to communicate with the applicable air traffic controllers. As for training on the Ikhana UAS platform, the same training and certification methods for the Insitu Scan Eagle will be applicable here. Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated will need to work with, contract, or employ assistance from General Atomics, or another agency (i.e. the U.S. Air Force), to train the selected aircraft operators on the initial operation of the Ikhana UAS. However, prior to attending the aircraft familiarization, potential Ikhana UAS pilot and sensor operators should undergo a series of evaluations by Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated to ensure the operator is capable of operating the aircraft for environmental research needs. This will screen each member to determine who may succeed in the instructional courses on how to operate the aircraft. Furthermore, because the Ikhana UAS will operate beyond line-of-sight and require sound coordination between crew members, it is highly recommended that Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated educate operators in CRM, especially communication and problem solving.

            In the end, both platforms will require specific operation training from the respective manufacturers. Additionally, both will require an examination of the crew’s ability to operate the aircrafts while conducting the specific missions of Oceanic Environmental Research Consolidated. Lastly, each UAS operator will need to earn and maintain all applicable pilot licenses, certificates, and ratings in order to effectively and legally fly in the NAS.

References

Conner, M. (2015, November 16). NASA Armstrong Fact Sheet: Ikhana Predator B Unmanned Science and Research Aircraft System. Retrieved from NASA.gov: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-097-DFRC.html

Federal Aviation Administration. (2016, May 12). Section 333. Retrieved from FAA.Gov: http://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/

Institu Inc. (2016). Command and Control. Retrieved from Insitu.com: https://insitu.com/information-delivery/command-and-control/icomc2

Medical certificates: Requirement and duration. (2016, May 10). 14 C.F.R. pt 61. Retrieved from http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?type=simple;c=ecfr;cc=ecfr;sid=85f2f758c7572cf6fd784c355d1c55a1;idno=14;region=DIV1;q1=61.23;rgn=div8;view=text;node=14%3A2.0.1.1.2.1.1.17

National Transportation Safety Board. (n.d.). NTSB Identification: CHI06MA121. Retrieved from NTSB.gov: http://www.ntsb.gov/about/employment/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20060509X00531&ntsbno=CHI06MA121&akey=1