Assignment 6.4 UAS Used for Fire Monitoring

One area that is receiving a lot of benefit from UAS technology is the area of firefighting and wildfire monitoring. UAV’s with cameras and sensor payloads have become a great benefit to ground firefighting forces by giving them the ability to determine the direction a fire is spreading, areas that are populated that need evacuation, and areas that could be beneficial for containing the fire.

            The first platform that I would like to review is the Elimco E300 with Fenix. This platform has the ability to be launched and operate for an hour and a half up to 27 miles away from the launch site (Roberts, 2014). It has a large payload capacity and can be fitted with monitoring equipment for night monitoring. It can also loiter over an area for three hours and get as far away as 62 miles from the launch point on a night operation (Roberts, 2014). The Fenix application also gives the operators the ability to map fire lines with a real time mapping tool (Roberts, 2014). This system is a great system but the drawback can be the limited amount of monitoring time. The platform is affordable for civil responders who do not have the budget of the DOD but used in conjunction with another platform the advantages increase.

            The second platform that I would like to discuss is the eBee by SenseFly. This platform is a lot smaller than conventional platforms and sports a wingspan of only 37.8 inches and weighs only 1.5 lbs. (Roberts, 2014). This innovative platform has a foam body with a rear propeller and can cover 10 miles in a single flight (Roberts, 2014). It uses Google Maps to program its flight plan and 10 drones can be controlled simultaneously from a single control station (Roberts, 2014). With its Postflight Terra 3D-EB mapping software it can create 3D terrain and elevation models which can be very beneficial to firefighting ground forces (Roberts, 2014). The advantages of this platform are that it is small, lightweight, and backpack transportable for firefighters on the ground. The disadvantages are that the payload is very limited so the camera cannot, as of yet, be switched out and is susceptible to damage from heat if it gets too close to the fire.

            The third platform that I want to discuss is the Kaman UAT. The Kaman UAT is an unmanned helicopter that can be used by first responders to transport gear and personnel or evacuate personnel in a dangerous area (Roberts, 2014). This platform has a 6000 pound payload capacity and can be fitted with optional CBRN sensors. It has been used to deliver food, water, and fuel and radio equipment to mountain top environments (Roberts, 2014). Versatility and its large payload capacity are distinct advantages. A disadvantage is the size limits it to many confined areas.

            There are not many legal or ethical challenges for using these platforms for firefighting support, wildfire monitoring, or rescue operations. In some cases using these platforms for disaster relief in urban areas could possibly be illegal if the agency deploying the platform does not have the correct licensing to use it in populated areas.

References

Roberts, M. (2014, March 20). Fire Rescue. Retrieved from Firerescue1: http://www.firerescue1.com/fire-products/communications/articles/1867819-5-drone-technologies-for-firefighting/

 

UAS in the NAS

Successful introduction of unmanned aerial systems into the National Airspace System is a conversation that has been long running and continues to be a hot topic as large corporations such as Amazon and Walmart are pushing for civil and commercial UAS use. The question on how to safely incorporate unmanned aerial systems into the NAS is hampered by the inherent distrust the US population has for how the unmanned aerial systems will be operated. Considerations such as privacy continue to be a hot button point as more and more citizens are coming forward with stories of observing UAS hovering over their backyards potentially observing their children at play or teenage children sunbathing. This is a topic that will continue to be pressed as new regulations for usage and penalties for misusage are developed.

            So the question on how to maintain separation and how to monitor separation is the focus of this paper. In any type of aircraft separation, be it manned or unmanned, situational awareness is the key to maintaining separation (Endsley & Jones, 2004). Whether this is achieved by avenues such as “see and avoid” where the pilot is largely responsible for separating him or herself from other aircraft, traffic calls being given by air traffic controllers where the pilot may not be able to see the other aircraft due to distance and direction, or by the use of TCAS where the pilot can be alerted to the proximity of other aircraft they may or may not be able to see some level of situational awareness is key to achieving separation (Tvaryanas, 2006).

            Currently a sense and avoid system has been tested by General Atomics to enable UAS to “sense and avoid” other aircraft. The system has been tested on Predator and Reaper UAV’s and has been developed as a comprehensive system that encompasses a radar, transponder, and a traffic alert system that enables the aircraft to detect other types of aircraft that it might encounter (Govers III, 2013). This system gives the ground control station the ability to know where other aircraft are in proximity to the UAS and even if the manned aircraft is not equipped with a transponder the radar acts as a redundancy for the UAS to “see” the other aircraft. This system has been developed for larger UAS but similar systems are being designed with consideration to varying sizes of UAS. The most comprehensive part of the system is the ability of the UAS to alert air traffic control of issues it may be experiencing through broadcasting on ATC emergency frequencies. These broadcasts would consist of area, direction, speed, and elevation data. This information is valuable as the air traffic controller will be able to alert manned aircraft of the UAS in the airspace and give them the capability to avoid and incident (Kongsberg, 2015).

References 

Endsley, M., & Jones, D. (2004). Designing for Situation Awareness. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Govers III, F. (2013, December 18). Gizmag. Retrieved from Gizmag.com: http://www.gizmag.com/uav-sense-avoid-test-general-atomics/30184/

Kongsberg. (2015, February 10). Retrieved from Kongsberg Maritime AS: http://www.km.kongsberg.com/ks/web/nokbg0240.nsf/AllWeb/7F3D0D6DAC990552C12574B1002E8091?OpenDocument

Tvaryanas, A. (2006). Human Factors Considerations in Migration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Operator Control. Brooks City, TX: United States Air Force.

 

2.5 Research Assignment: Weeding Out a Solution

        My first thought is where are we in the project timeline? Are we close to the implementation phase or are we still far enough away that significant changes can be made? Both teams have made decisions that have resulted in their designs being overweight but the delivery system is the option that has been over marketed to the customer. As someone who is not a systems engineer my first thought would be to seek a solution in the area of guidance, navigation, and control. The team on the project responsible for guidance, navigation, and control has opted to use sub systems from existing “off-the-shelf” products. I would assume that they had compared and contrasted existing products to find the best solution possible while taking into account weight restrictions but was their decision on a solution based more on what the items could deliver than on overall weight of the products. Also what is the break-even point on custom design versus utilizing off-the-shelf items that are already on the market? Perhaps this is an area where more research and development on behalf of the UAS designers would be more beneficial and advantageous to the organization in the long run than using off-the-shelf solutions (Cohn, 2014).

            A question to ask the delivery design team is whether or not utilizing off-the-shelf components for the delivery system will hamper the system in the end due to lack of the ability for customization (Cohn, 2014). There is a whole lot to be said about choosing an off-the-shelf solution that makes sense in the here and now and custom making a solution that is able to be customized in the future depending on the needs of the customer and developments of new products to be delivered by the system. There may be a product that comes along that is cheaper, more efficient, or safer than existing products. How are we as an organization going to develop a delivery system that looks to the future via customization? As I begin to think about it more it may be more beneficial to change the way we deliver the payload and customize in that area than using off-the-shelf solutions (Cohn, 2014). I believe there is wiggle room in both areas for innovation because both teams ability to be innovative will ensure the overall agility of the company in the future.

References

Cohn, C. (2014, Sep 15). Forbes. Retrieved from Forbes.com: http://www.forbes.com/sites#/sites/chuckcohn/2014/09/15/build-vs-buy-how-to-know-when-you-should-build-custom-software-over-canned-solutions/

 

1.5 Research Assignment: History of UAS

One of the most interesting applications that I have found for UAS use, pre-1970’s, was the DH.82B Queen Bee in the United Kingdom. Between 1935 and 1947 over 370 of the plywood biplanes were flown from airfields in the UK and used for target practice for the Royal Navy. The wooden biplanes were remotely controlled, had wheels, and took off from grass airfields and were able to be returned and land at on the same surface. These large plywood planes were very versatile and could fly as high as 17,000 feet (Nova, 2015). They could also travel up to 300 miles away at a speed of 100 miles per hour (Nova, 2015). This was the first recordable use of a remote controlled aircraft being used as an asset to train military service members in a different branch (Royal Navy working in conjunction with the Royal Air Force). The controls of the aircraft were incredibly basic by today’s standards. The aircraft was designed using a standard body of a Tiger Moth but instead of having the cloth covered metal frame of a Tiger Moth it was designed and produced with spruce and plywood (de Havilland Aircraft Museum, 2015). The aircraft was powered by a single 130hp de Havilland Gipsy Major 1 engine. The rear cockpit of the biplane was enclosed and was fitted with a RAE radio control gear which included pneumatically operated servo units which were linked to the biplanes rudder and elevator controls (de Havilland Aircraft Museum, 2015).

            In contrast to this primitive design but following the same concept of using an aircraft for target practice Boeing announced in March that they had transformed an F-16 fighter jet into an unmanned aerial system that will be used as targets in Top Gun styled war games (Solon, 2015). The actual program was announced in 2013 but Boeing has only just started delivery of the systems to the US Air Force. The contrast between the Queen Bee and the F-16 UAS is staggering. The level of electronics, command and control, and linkage is night and day. The F-16 drone flies with the same capabilities as its manned counterpart. It is controlled from a ground station utilizing satellite up and downlinks. It has a very sophisticated lost-link algorithms programmed into its computers that enables the aircraft to fly a holding pattern until linkage is reestablished or it can be programmed to return to base and remotely land via ILS approach. The Queen Bee on the other hand if it lost link with its controller would end up crashing in a field or in the water depending on where it was being flown.

            The evolution of these systems, from a wooden biplane to an F-16, has enabled the Air Forces in both the UK and the US to be able to train not only their naval war fighters but also their Air Force dog fighters. I believe this is just the beginning of the applications of UAS systems being utilized for larger and more complex aircraft systems.

References

de Havilland Aircraft Museum. (2015, May 10). Retrieved from dehavillandmuseum.com: http://www.dehavillandmuseum.co.uk/aircraft/de-havilland-dh82b-queen-bee/

Nova. (2015, March 12). Retrieved from PBS.Org: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spiesfly/uavs.html

Solon, O. (2015, March 25). Mirror Online. Retrieved from Mirror.co.uk: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/technology/boeings-pilotless-f-16-fighter-jets-5395920