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.