06.01.2013 Views

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap 2005-2030 - Federation of ...

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap 2005-2030 - Federation of ...

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap 2005-2030 - Federation of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

UAS ROADMAP <strong>2005</strong><br />

knowledge skills required <strong>of</strong> UA operators operating in the NAS; this minimum standard may differ for<br />

given classes <strong>of</strong> UA. UA operators 3 will be expected to conform to these requirements.<br />

Another issue that arises is when civilian pilots, such as those working for an aircraft manufacturer<br />

building UA for the military, need to fly their company's product during the performance <strong>of</strong> a military<br />

contract, such as for test, production delivery, and acceptance (DD Form 250) flights. The Defense<br />

Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for such activities leading up to the<br />

acceptance <strong>of</strong> aircraft by the government, has established a policy letter (DCMA Instruction 8210.1, dated<br />

13 November 2002) requiring all contractor UA operators to hold a current FAA Private or Commercial<br />

Pilot and Instrument rating to fly outside <strong>of</strong> restricted or warning areas. This policy has already been<br />

waived in certain conditions when the operator training and currency requirements have been found<br />

adequate for the operation. Qualification standards for non-military UA operators and maintainers will<br />

eventually need an FAA rating that reflects the type <strong>of</strong> aircraft they are operating.<br />

SEE AND AVOID PRINCIPLE<br />

A key requirement for routine access to the NAS is UA compliance with 14 CFR 91.113, “Right-<strong>of</strong>-Way<br />

Rules: Except Water Operations.” This is the Section that contains the phrase “see and avoid,” and is the<br />

primary restriction to normal operations <strong>of</strong> UA. The intent <strong>of</strong> “see and avoid” is for pilots to use their<br />

sensors (eyes) and other tools to find and maintain situational awareness <strong>of</strong> other traffic and to yield the<br />

right-<strong>of</strong>- way, in accordance with the rules, when there is a traffic conflict. Since the purpose <strong>of</strong> this<br />

regulation is to avoid mid-air collisions, this should be the focus <strong>of</strong> technological efforts to address the<br />

issue as it relates to UA rather than trying to mimic and/or duplicate human vision. In June 2003,<br />

USAF’s Air Combat Command (ACC) sponsored a joint working group to establish and quantify a S&A<br />

system capability for submission to the FAA; their White Paper, See and Avoid Requirement for<br />

Remotely Operated <strong>Aircraft</strong>, was released in June 2004.<br />

Relying simply on human vision results in mid-airs accounting for an average <strong>of</strong> 0.8 percent <strong>of</strong> all<br />

mishaps and 2.4 percent <strong>of</strong> all aviation fatalities incurred annually (based on the 3-year average from<br />

1998 to 2000). 4 Meaningful S&A performance must alert the UA operator to local air traffic at ranges<br />

sufficient for reaction time and avoidance actions by safe margins. Furthermore, UA operations BLOS<br />

may require an automated S&A system due to potential communications latencies or failures.<br />

The FAA does not provide a quantitative definition <strong>of</strong> S&A, largely due to the number <strong>of</strong> combinations <strong>of</strong><br />

pilot vision, collision vectors, sky background, and aircraft paint schemes involved in seeing oncoming<br />

traffic. Having a sufficient field <strong>of</strong> regard (FOR) for a UA S&A system, however, is fundamental to<br />

meeting the goal <strong>of</strong> assured air traffic separation. The FAA does provide a cockpit field <strong>of</strong> regard<br />

recommendation in its Advisory Circular 25.773-1, but the purpose <strong>of</strong> AC 25.773-1 does not specifically<br />

mention S&A.<br />

Although an elusive issue, one fact is apparent. The challenge with the S&A issue is based on a<br />

capability constraint, not a regulatory one. Given the discussions in this and other analyses, a possible<br />

definition for S&A systems emerges: S&A is the onboard, self-contained ability to<br />

� Detect traffic that may be a conflict<br />

� Evaluate flight paths<br />

� Determine traffic right-<strong>of</strong>-way<br />

� Maneuver well clear according to the rules in Part 91.113, or<br />

3<br />

NOTE: UA operators may, or may not, be "rated pilots." For this Airspace Integration Plan, "operator" is the<br />

generic term to describe the individual with the appropriate training and Service certification for the type <strong>of</strong> UA<br />

being operated, and as such, is responsible for the air vehicle's operations and safety.<br />

4<br />

National Transportation Safety Board aviation statistics.<br />

APPENDIX F – AIRSPACE<br />

Page F-7

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!