WHITE PAPER - Amtech-usa.org
WHITE PAPER - Amtech-usa.org
WHITE PAPER - Amtech-usa.org
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
function and thereby achieving an “equivalent level of safety” (ELOS), comparable to an<br />
aircraft with a pilot onboard. In addition, ROA must be equipped to meet the same airspacespecific<br />
operating requirements as manned aircraft. ROA that do not possess this equipment<br />
may be restricted to certain routes, confined to specified airspace, and restricted to altitudes that<br />
do not provide maximum operational flexibility. Furthermore, the Air Force must develop<br />
standards and procedures for ROA to assure both airworthiness and reliable operating<br />
capabilities.<br />
The following topics are mentioned for informative purposes and provide insight into the<br />
interaction of the military (DoD) ROA community with the Air Force Flight Standards Agency<br />
(AFFSA) and the FAA:<br />
FAA Order 7610.4, Special Military Operations<br />
In the late 1970s, the FAA and Department of Defense (DoD) reached agreement on the<br />
operation of unmanned aircraft in the NAS, outside of restricted and warning areas. At<br />
that time, these systems were labeled remotely piloted vehicles (RPV). The criteria for<br />
the operation of DoD RPV in the NAS were written into FAA Order 7610.4, Special<br />
Military Operations. Subsequently, some military <strong>org</strong>anizations began using the term<br />
“unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)” for these systems, and that term became more<br />
prevalent over time. Yet, this terminology was never included in FAA Order 7610.4.<br />
The advent of the MQ-1 and the RQ-4 extended the operational capabilities of unmanned<br />
aircraft significantly. As a result, the FAA and DoD determined additional guidelines<br />
were needed to ensure safety could be maintained when ROA were operated in the NAS<br />
outside restricted and warning areas. Therefore, in May 1999, the FAA, with DoD<br />
concurrence, issued an FAA Notice that changed the criteria in FAA Order 7610.4 for<br />
DoD RPV operations. This Notice implemented the COA process and changed the<br />
designation of unmanned flight systems from RPV to ROA. Subsequently, the contents<br />
of this Notice were incorporated into the next revision to FAA Order 7610.4. Since a<br />
single document was developed jointly between the DoD and FAA, DoD publications<br />
like AFI 11-202V3 refer to the FAA Order as an approved source.<br />
Equivalent Level of Safety<br />
In accordance with FAA Order 7610.4, Special Military Operations, Chapter 12,<br />
Section 9: a ROA must achieve an “equivalent level of safety” (ELOS), comparable to a<br />
manned aircraft. ELOS refers to a combination of systems and a concept of operations<br />
that reduces the chance of a midair collision to an acceptable level. At this point in the<br />
development process of a SAA system, we do not yet have all the information necessary<br />
to establish a defensible and tangible value for ELOS (e.g., 10 -6 ). Historical midair<br />
collision rates for manned aircraft will provide some indication of what this value should<br />
be. However, further simulation, testing, and analyses will be required before we will be<br />
able to define the requirement for “ELOS.”<br />
ROA vs. RPV and UAV Terminology<br />
During the coordination process leading to the creation of the FAA Notice that changed<br />
the previous RPV criteria, the FAA and DoD reached agreement that these unmanned<br />
4