a requirements & capability discussion: uas for...
TRANSCRIPT
A Requirements & Capability Discussion: UAS for SAR & Law
Enforcement Reece Clothier
Senior Research Fellow Australian Research Centre for Aerospace Automation
Queensland University of Technology [email protected]
Overview of Presentation
� An appreciation of the mission requirements
� Assessment of the “State of Play” � UAS for SAR in the short term � UAS for Surveillance in the short term
� Dipping your toe in the water
2
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
UAS For SAR and Law Enforcement
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Mercury Press Agency Ltd
Ripley Valley Rural Fire Brigade
3
ShadowHawk Photograph: Vangurard
Photo: Sacremento Police
Ripley Valley Rural Fire Brigade
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
4
The Solution Space
UAS data supplied from a database compiled and maintained by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), Australia. CPA data obtained from Aviation Week and Space Report and Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft. REF: Clothier et al. (2011) “Definition of an airworthiness certification framework for civil unmanned aircraft systems“, Safety Science. 2011
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1E-‐2 1E-‐1 1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3
endurance (hr)
number o
f aircraft ty
pes
UASmanned aircraftUAS, 714 total
CPA, 497 total
5
UAS data supplied from a database compiled and maintained by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), Australia. CPA data obtained from Aviation Week and Space Report and Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft. REF: Clothier et al. (2011) “Definition of an airworthiness certification framework for civil unmanned aircraft systems“, Safety Science. 2011
The Solution Space
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
6
UAS data supplied from a database compiled and maintained by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), Australia. CPA data obtained from Aviation Week and Space Report and Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft. REF: Clothier et al. (2011) “Definition of an airworthiness certification framework for civil unmanned aircraft systems“, Safety Science. 2011
The Solution Space
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
UAS data supplied from a database compiled and maintained by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), Australia. CPA data obtained from Aviation Week and Space Report and Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft. REF: Clothier et al. (2011) “Definition of an airworthiness certification framework for civil unmanned aircraft systems“, Safety Science. 2011
UAS, 633 total
CPA, 645 total
7
The Solution Space
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
CONSIDER THE SYSTEM AND NOT JUST THE AIRCRAFT!
logistics
regulatory requirements
crew training & currency
Maintenance and sustainment
legal considerations
mission requirements
interoperability with existing systems
deployment and recovery
security
sensors
risks
WH&S 8
cost
service outcomes
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
Why Bother to Explore UAS?
� Comes down to potential improvements that can be achieved in the level of SAR and LE service (for the same budget) � Improvements in the coverage, availability, efficiency or
outcomes from existing SAR and LE services � Potential to offer new SAR and LE services � Reduction in the risks to SAR and LE personnel
� Service improvements potentially gained through the unique performance capabilities of the Unmanned Aircraft SYSTEM � They are SYSTEM properties not just aircraft properties � We are trying to determine the requirements on the system that
will deliver the intended service improvements
9
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
A Requirements Shopping List… � Mission Performance
� Role � Response time � Time on station � Data � Environmental conditions � Interoperability with existing
systems
� Capability Establishment � System cost � Personnel, training & licensing � Operational approvals
(UOC, AA, LoA) � Procedures & practices
(OM, FM, MM, SMS, WH&S)
� Legal, liability & insurance
� Capability Sustainment � Maintenance � Replenishment of stores � Crewing, currency & retention
� Capability Improvement � Expanding scope of operations � Improving sensors & systems � Revising policies & practices
� Capability Retirement � Migration to new systems
10
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
Requirements on Range � Range is particularly critical to broad area SAR
� For UAS, it is important to consider the system range NOT just the aircraft range
� Maximum operating range can be limited by the � Types of communications links that are used � Level of autonomy of the system � The nature of the terrain in the operating area
� The location of the remote pilot station and “spoke” stations
� Number and location of repeater stations � Which can be both ground and in the air
� Operational restrictions (e.g., conditions in your UOC or the extent of your area approval)
11
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
Requirements on Endurance � Endurance is also key to to broad area SAR and persistent LE
� Maximum operating endurance is a factor of � The platform performance
� Multi-rotors – typically < 60 minutes � Small helicopters (e.g., < 20 kg) around 1-2hrs � Medium/large helicopters UAS (6-12 hours) � Small fixed wing (12-24+ hours) � Large fixed wing (upto 18-36+ hours)
� Crew hours � Function of autonomy of the system � Number of crews available
� Available operating hours under conditions of UOC or AA (e.g., day VMC only)
12
Camcopter S-100 - Schiebel
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
13
Requirements on Operating Conditions � SAR missions are often associated with weather events. Typical
requirement is to be able to deploy in inclement weather
� Ability to deploy in poor weather is not just whether it is IFR or VFR rated aircraft � Many “low end” UAS are not waterproof � Like manned aircraft, to operate a UAS in IMC, requires IFR
equipment and training
� Weather will also impact: � Sensor performance (from clouds, moisture on lens and vibration) � The stability of the platform – small UAS � Ability to reach operating sites and deploy (example of Insitu and QLD
Police operations up in North Queensland) � Safety cases and suitability of standard operating procedures
� E.g., due to changes in aircraft traffic patterns � Existing mitigations reliant on “vision”
� Takeoff performance
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
Requirements on Response Time
� Response time is a critical performance requirement for both SAR and LE missions
� UAS response time is a factor of the � Type of aircraft and its performance � Location of launch and recovery sites relative to mission areas � Portability and setup of equipment including launch/recovery
elements � Regulatory and operational approvals that need to be in place (or
activated) � Service model (contract service or own operator)
14
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
Requirements on Logistics � Don’t just look at the size of the aircraft
� Consider the launch and recover elements
� Any forward equipment stations
� Size/weight of equipment � backpack, patrol car, truck, custom vehicle? � personnel manual handling and WH&S
� Potential for damage during transport
� Access to sites – 4WD? Truck licence?
� Lead time on parts will impact turn around and its impact on availability � Can you go to the local Dick Smiths? � Should you go to the local Dick Smiths?
15
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
Requirements on Observability
� LE operations often require low observable systems � Consider both the visual and noise profile � Low–noise platforms also have the benefit of low public nuisance
� Will influence the choice of: � operating altitude � propulsion system (electric, ICE, jet)
� On the other hand, it is not good to have a low visibility system because: � For purposes of “see and avoid” – you want to be as visible to other
pilots as possible. CASA may require the fitment of navigation, and anti-collision strobes
� High visibility is required in order for ground-based pilots to be able to locate and orientate themselves with respect to the UAS and to ensure visual separation from another aircraft or structures
16
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
CONSIDERATION - Launch � Benefit of VTOLS!
� Hand launch (MTOW < ~5kg)*
� Assisted Launch Systems � Bungee (MTOW < ~15kg)* � Catapult (MTOW < ~90kg)* � Pneumatic rail (MTOW < ~400kg)* � Additional logistics / equipment � Potential wear/damage to aircraft � Don’t need a prepared launch area � Additional time required to launch aircraft
� Conventional Runway � Limited to prepared area or existing sealed runway � Challenges with integrating alongside other airfield users � Exit/transit lanes to operational areas
* typical values
17
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
CONSIDERATION - Recovery � Again – another advantage of VTOLs
� Conventional takeoff and landing � Simple but limited to prepared landing areas
� Belly skid � Prone to damage (propeller, leading edges, antennas and payload)
� Net and hook retrieval systems � Advantages – independence of prepared strips (e.g., can recover to
vessels) � Disadvantages – again additional logistics (integrated launcher/
recovery) � Potential damage to UAS
� Parachute � Added aircraft weight � Useful in emergency situations � Reduce kinetic energy profile - operations over inhabited areas
18
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
� The information needs of the decision maker should drive requirements on the payload and not the other way round (otherwise, why fly?)
� Types of sensors flown (e.g., thermal IR for MFB)
� Payload support � Power, volume, weight, drag…
� Trade-offs � Resolution, range, field of regard, field of view (the soda straw) � Onboard processing, storage and bandwidth requirements � Data provided � Environment
� In many cases the payload can far exceed the cost of the UAS � UAS Crashworthiness??
Requirement - Payload 19
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
CONSIDERATION – Data
� Once you have collected the data – what do you do want to do with it?
� For LE missions, can it be used as evidence in a court of law?
� Need to know the accuracy and precision of the data
� This is a function of: � Aircraft navigation performance (position, speed of aircraft) � Sensor resolution, field of view and accuracy in pointing � Measurement of the aircraft and sensor attitude and the range
and speed of the target � Time synchronisation and logging of ALL of the above data
20
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
Requirement - Security � Particularly for small UAS performing LE missions, security
of the system is an important consideration during the operation, storage or transportation � controlled item (like firearms or tasers)
� Security of the remote pilot station during operations
� Security of the communications links used � Encryption and frequency hopping DSS systems � Resilience to jamming and interference
� Security/privacy of the information � Onboard storage (loss of UAS and recovery of storage devices)
21
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
Requirement - Autonomy � Stability augmentation through to automated path planning and following
� Why seek a higher level of autonomy for LE and SAR? � Autonomy will be required to fly beyond VLOS of the remote pilot � Autonomy can be a safety feature
� E.g., for communications loss or containment
� Reducing the demand on communications bandwidth � Onboard intelligent sensor processing � Also extend your “comms” range
� Autonomy ensures consistency in service performance � Machines don’t fatigue
� Reducing payload and remote pilot task load � From stability augmentation through to full guidance, navigation and control for all
phases of flight
� Lower training requirements
� Facilitates multi-tasking � A single crew can potentially support multiple UAS
22
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
Consideration – Autonomy and UAS Teaming
� Excluding ground crew, typically a two to three man crew is required to support a single UAS large operation � Remote pilot, sensor operator and supervising controller � Current concept is many people to one UAS � Drive towards one person to many UAS
� Why move to teams? � Search efficiency and effectiveness
� Divide and conquer � Use multiple UAS in overlapping paths (ocean currents)
� Utilise UAS with different sensors � Communications relay
� Extend the reach of systems
23
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
CONSIDERATION – Military vs Civil
� Military Systems � Typically attract a higher price tag (procurement and through life
support costs) � “Proven” - Many have significant operational heritage � Generally not developed with your specific requirements in mind � May never know “what’s in the box” � May only be able to engage under a service arrangement � Often have limited opportunity for modification � Greater interoperability of systems (e.g., STANAGs, MILSTDS) � Operations in civil airspace an “after thought” � Competition for parts/support with military customers
25
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
CONSIDERATION – Military vs Civil
� Civil / Commercial Systems � Many being designed from the outset with a particular
application in mind � Flexible and more open to tailoring to application needs � Not designed to any particular standard � Quality of engineering / components / aircraft � Largely “unproven” systems
26
Qube public safety UAS Photograph by: Gary Winterboer
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
27
Requirements on Communications � Range is particularly critical to broad area SAR
� For UAS, it is important to consider the system range
� NOT just the aircraft range
� Communications performance is not constant � What you see out in the bush � For SAR in built up areas must � Types of communications links used � Level of autonomy of system
� BVLOS operations
� Terrain and operating area � Number of ground control elements � Operational restrictions (e.g., extent of your area approval)
� Does it need to be inter-operable with existing systems?
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
CONSIDERATION – Getting Approval to Operate
Photograph: Merseyside Police/PA
28
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
� Operational restrictions are unavoidable in the short to medium term
� Key to approvals is being able to ensure containment to a designated area of operations � Containment to airspace � Containment to the designated unpopulated area
� Methods � The big “red” button – not useful when over populated
areas � Geo-fencing � Automated Recovery Systems � Controlled ditching � Margins
CONSIDERATION – Containment 29
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
CONSIDERATION – Social Issues � Social attitude towards the risks
� Search and rescue, bushfire fighting vs law enforcement and surveillance
� Noise � Operations over regions previously free of aviation activity
� Social issues within your personnel
30
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
Requirements on Cost
� Why it’s difficult to talk about costs � Can’t make comparisons – aircraft and performance to do
the same role � Comparing established systems/operations with figures for
“low number” or one-off missions which have a NRE component on setup
� Availability of figures
� Factors to consider � Buying a system – not an aircraft � Number of people required � Deployment to the field � Cost comaprisons best made in terms of outcomes
� E.g., $$ area searched per hour
31
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
Recommendations on How to Get into the UAS Game… � You know your application space better than anyone else
� So, you think you know what you need!
� “We” know the technology and what it can do � So, we think we know what capabilities you want!
� In reality, neither of us truly know what it is we want or need until we go out and field the technology
� Consider initial foray into UAS as a learning exercise for both the end user of the technology and the technology provider
32
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
� Think big but start small and build up � Gain experience with a small, low risk and well-scoped operation � Attracts lower initial overhead (approvals etc.)
� Reduces corporate risk and liability risk
� Know what SERVICE outcomes you want to measure and make sure you can measure them!
� Get trained on the UAS, even if you don’t own it � No better way to get a full appreciation of a system than to
become a trained operator for it
� Iteratively expand the scope of operations/complexity as you and the UAS operator/supplier gain experience
33
Recommendations on How to Get into the UAS Game…
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
When does it Make Sense to Use UAS? � Do not view UAS as replacements for current civil
conventionally piloted aviation services � E.g., only the “Search” in SAR
� Instead it is better to consider how UAS can compliment conventional assets � Consider the integrated “capability” which may be achieved
� Free up conventional aircraft for what they are good at: � Delivery of aid or personnel, winching, medevac…
� Ability to provide enhanced service � New services (e.g., when conditions are too dangerous) � Greater availability, coverage, efficiency and more successful
outcomes � More for the same $$ � Reduce the risk to service personnel
34
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
Summary
� Huge range of potential systems that could provide a capability SAR and LE
� Truly understanding the requirements for a particular application is difficult – consider it a learning exercise for both
� Must consider system performance and not aircraft performance
� Likely starting points for UAS in SAR and LE: � First response – small multi-rotor UAS, within VLOS and in a
contained environment � For SAR, small fixed wing UAS
� Think big but start small and build up � Aligns with CASA risk management approach � Manages the financial and operational risks
35
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.
QUESTIONS
Reece Clothier
Australian Research Centre for Aerospace Automation
www.arcaa.aero
36
Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.