Click to edit Master title style

Normalizing UAV Access to the National Airspace System

– Progress Report –

Normalizing UAV Access to the National Airspace System

– Progress Report –

April 2002

2

OUTLINEOUTLINE

OSD/FAA Program

Relation to Access 5/UNITE Effort

Facts Underlying Airspace Access Issues

Conclusions

3

BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND

Mid-1990s — Increasing numbers of endurance UAVs needing to transit civil airspace appeared

1997-99 — FAA and DoD coordinate rules for permitting military ROAs in civil airspace in FAA order 7610.4; COA process instituted

Mar 2001 — OSD and FAA select ASI to work towards “file and fly” process to replace COA process for qualifying ROAs

Mar 2002 — MOA between FAA and DoD for integrating ROAs into the NAS signed

Mar 2003 — OSD UAV Roadmap released, setting goals for improving UAV reliability and file & fly process

Apr 2003 — AFFSA convenes DoD/FAA IPT to revise 7610.4

4

SCOPESCOPE

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

GOALGOAL

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 EFFORTPHASES 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

*

*

*

7

Northwest Mountain Region

WesternPacificRegion

Southwest Region

Great Lakes Region

Central Region

Southern Region

Eastern Region

New England Region

Springfield

NASA Wallops IslandMission Control

Valdosta

Lake Charles

Hobbs

Kingman

Casper Ft. Dodge

Dayton

• Land and Takeoff in each FAA Region

• File IFR flight plan for Class E airspace

• Fly 600 nm logs between sunrise and sunset

• Exercise File & Fly Procedure

• Employ FAA-approved S&A system

USAF UAV BattlelabB/U Mission Control

DEMONSTRATION (Notional Route)DEMONSTRATION (Notional Route)

1

23

4

5

6

7

8

9

GOALS

REQUIREMENTS

8

COOPERATIVE EFFORTSCOOPERATIVE 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

9

CONSOLIDATING AIRSPACE EFFORTSCONSOLIDATING AIRSPACE EFFORTS

Public

Military Other State

Civil

(Commercial)

Class E

Class A

Class E

Class G

UNITEAccess 5FAA/OSD

1200 ft*AGL

FL180

FL600

FL400

10

TIMELINES OF EFFORTSTIMELINES OF EFFORTS

FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07

TECHNICAL (S&A–MARCAT/DRA/VACS)

REGULATORY (7610.4 REV)

IMPLEMENTATION (DEMO)

SUA/FL400+

SUA/FL180+

Airport/FL 180+

Airport/FL 180+/ Alternate Recovery

COA

COA

F&F

F&F

F&F

FAA/OSD

UNITE/Access 5

11

ROA Flight in

Foreign Airspace

ROA Flight in

International Airspace

Civil ROA

Airworthiness

Civil ROA

Traffic Ops

Civil ROA

Crew Qualifications

Public ROA

Crew QualificationsPublic ROA

Airworthiness

Public ROA

Traffic Ops

LAYING THE GROUNDWORKLAYING THE GROUNDWORK

12

DEFINING FAA’s “FLYING DEVICES”DEFINING FAA’s “FLYING DEVICES”

Regulated Aircraft*

Regulated Non-Aircraft– Ultralights (“air vehicles”)–Balloons–Model Rockets

* Only “aircraft” are certified airworthy and require licensed pilots

Unregulated Non-Aircraft– RC models

Remotely Operated Aircraft(Global Hawk)

Regulated UAVs(Pioneer)

UnregulatedUAVs

(Dragon Eye)

13

ISSUES with CURRENT PROCESSISSUES 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

APPROACHESAPPROACHES

Issue Possible Approach Example Outcome

Too Cumbersome

Too Restrictive

Not Standardized

Replace COA process

Develop system-based definition for “See & Avoid”

Use existing CFRs as patternsfor ROA regulation

DD175-like processfor filing flight plans

Update to AC 90-48C

Modified 14 CFR 103for “tactical” ROAs

15

“EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY”“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 RELIABILITYCURRENT UAV RELIABILITY

Bottom Line: UAV reliability needs to improve by a factor of 10-100

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Year

Cu

mu

lati

ve M

ish

ap R

ate

per

100

,000

Hrs

RQ-1 / Predator

RQ-2 / Pioneer

RQ-5 / Hunter

Source: OSD draft study “UAV Reliability,” 2003.

Class A’s per 100,000 hrs of flight

17

AIRSPACE RESTRICTIONSAIRSPACE 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

CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS

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

Click to edit Master title style

20

KINETIC ENERGY COMPARISONKINETIC ENERGY COMPARISON

8M

6M

4M

2M

Dragon Eye Pointer Shadow Pioneer Hunter Predator

KE, FT-LB

TWO-PLACE ULTRALIGHT MAX KE= 7,959,092 FT-LB

MAX SPEED KE

0.012 M 0.034 M

2.3 MLOITERING KE

7.6 M7.7 M

2.7 M

26 M39 M

21

ROA Flight in

Foreign Airspace

ROA Flight in

International Airspace

Civil ROA

Airworthiness

Civil ROA

Traffic Ops

Civil ROA

Crew Qualifications

Public ROA

Crew QualificationsPublic ROA

Airworthiness

Public ROA

Traffic Ops

FAA/OSD Effort NASA/ERAST Effort AIA Effort

FAA Order 7610.4JUnit/System COAs

OSS & E Process DCMA Policy Letter

BRIDGING THE MILITARY-CIVIL GAPBRIDGING THE MILITARY-CIVIL GAP

22

BRIDGING THE MILITARY-CIVIL GAPBRIDGING THE MILITARY-CIVIL GAP

Civil UAV/ROA TrafficCivil UAV/ROA TrafficTechnologyTechnology

•CPDL?•Coll. Avoid•WAAS•LAAS•ADS-B

RegulationsRegulations

•Part 91•New 107•GPS A&L•Airfields

Civil ROA AirworthyCivil ROA AirworthyTechnologyTechnology

•Reliability•Control Sys•Autonomy

RegulationsRegulations

•Part 21•Control Systems•Autonomy

Civil ROA Crew QualsCivil ROA Crew QualsTechnologyTechnology

•Certified Simulators wrt flights

RegulationsRegulations

•Mods to Part 61

Civil Multi-Civil Multi-Vehicle Ops?Vehicle Ops?

Public UAV/ROA TrafficPublic UAV/ROA TrafficTechnologyTechnology

•7610.4J•Service Pubs

•Collision Avoidance•IFF•Radios

Public ROA AirworthyPublic ROA AirworthyTechnologyTechnology

•MH 516•OSS&E

•LE Engines•Certified•Controls•Autonomy

Public ROA Crew QualsPublic ROA Crew QualsTechnologyTechnology

•Services•DCMA Policy

•Sims•Course Analysis

Multi-Vehicle Ops QualMulti-Vehicle Ops QualTechnologyTechnology

•TBD •Multi- Capable Control Systems

Crew QualsCrew Quals

Policy•ICAO

ROA Flight in International AirspaceROA Flight in International AirspaceAirworthinessAirworthiness

•ICAO•Reliability•GATM•HMS

Traffic OpsTraffic Ops

Policy•ICAO

Tech•RNP•RVSM

Crew QualsCrew Quals

•ICAOOr•Other

ROA Flight in Foreign AirspaceROA Flight in Foreign AirspaceAirworthinessAirworthiness

•ICAO•Other

Traffic OpsTraffic Ops

•Euro – JAA•Japan•Australia•Other

FAA/OSDEffort

RegulationsRegulations RegulationsRegulations RegulationsRegulations RegulationsRegulations

23

WHY CAN’T THIS BE DONE TODAY?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

24

SEVEN KEY ISSUESSEVEN KEY ISSUES

Aircrew Certification

Airworthiness Certification

See & Avoid

Collision Avoidance Systems

Equivalent Level of Safety (Reliability)

Lost Communication Procedures

Airspace Restrictions

25

PUBLIC AIRCRAFT EXEMPTIONSPUBLIC 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

26

SEE & AVOIDSEE & 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)

27

THE “SEE” IN SEE & AVOIDTHE “SEE” IN SEE & AVOID

Cooperative Non-Cooperative

Active

Pro: - Both range and bearing provided

- Functions in VMC and IMC

Con: - SWAP

- Cost

Example: TCAS systems

Pro: - Range, bearing, and closure rate provided

- Functions in VMC and IMC

Con: - Data link required

- SWAP

- Cost

Example: radars

Passive

Pro: - Cost

Con: - VMC only

Example: High Visibility Paint

Pro: - Cost

- Detects non-transponder (all) aircraft

Con: - Bearing only provided

- Data link required

- VMC only

Example: EO/IR sensors

Oncoming Traffic is…

Onb

oard

Sys

tem

s ar

e…

28

COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEMSCOLLISION 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

29

MARCATMARCAT

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

30

LOST COMMUNICATION PROCEDURESLOST 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

Bottom Line: DoD standard needed for UAV lost comms guidance

Mystery to the controller!

31

SUMMARYSUMMARY

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