astm f38 meeting schedule may 2, 2016 - auvsi, new orleans ... · may 2, 2016 - auvsi, new orleans...

ASTM F38 Meeting Schedule

May 2, 2016 - AUVSI, New Orleans

Time Monday, May 2nd

8:00 - 8:30 AM Sign in

8:30 - 9:00 AM F38 Welcome and Standards Overview - Ted Wierzbanowski

9:00 - 9:30 AM FAA Certification Process Update - Wes Ryan

9:30 - 10:00 AM KSU Standards Validation Project - Andi Meyer

10:00 - 10:15 AM BREAK

10:15 - 10:45 AM ASSURE Program and ASTM F38 - Dallas Brooks

10:45 - 11:30 AM F38 Main Committee Opening

11:30 - 1:00 PM LUNCH

F38.01 Airworthiness Subcommittee

Design, Construct, and Test of Fixed Wing (WK52962)

Design, Construct, and Test of VTOL (WK53964)

Software Dependability (WK50655)

Adaptive Algorithms (WK53403)

Marking (WK27055)

Design, Construct, and Test (F2910-14)

Design of Command and Control System (F3002-14a)

Use of Batteries (F3005-14a)

Production Acceptance (F2911-14e1)

Quality Assurance (F3003-14)

3:00 - 3:15 PM BREAK

F38.02 Flight Operations Subcommittee

Extended/Beyond Visual Line of Sight (WK52059)

Operations Over People (WK52089)

Operational Risk Assessment (WK49619)

Maintenance and Continued Airworthiness F2909-14)

F38.03 Personnel Training, Qualification, and Certfication

Subcommittee

Pilot/Visual Observer Training (WK29229)

Aircraft Flight Manual (F2908-16)

5:15 - 5:30 PM F38 Main Committee Closing

Chairman Ted Wierzbanowski - [email protected]

F38.01 Chairman Ajay Sehgal - [email protected]

F38.02 Chairman Mark Blanks - [email protected]

F38.03 Chairman Scott Strimple - [email protected]

Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, New Orleans

http://www.xponential.org/auvsi2016/public/enter.aspx

1:00 - 3:00 PM

3:15 - 5:15 PM

100 Barr Harbor Drive

PO Box C700

West Conshohocken, PA 19428-

2959 USA

[email protected]

tel +1.610.832.9500

fax +1.610.832.9555

www.astm.org

© ASTM International

www.astm.org

ASTM International Committee F38 on Unmanned Aircraft SystemsASTM Meeting at AUVSI, New OrleansErnest N. Morial Convention Center, Room 207

2 May 2016Ted WierzbanowskiChair, ASTM International Committee F38


ASTM Anti-Trust Statement

Choose Insert > Header and Footer to change DateChoose Insert > Header and Footer to change Presentation Title 2

ASTM International is a not-for-profit organization and developer of voluntary consensus standards. ASTM's leadership in international standards development is driven by the contributions of its members: more than 30,000 technical experts and business professionals representing 135 countries.

The purpose of antitrust laws is to preserve economic competition in the marketplace by prohibiting, among other things, unreasonable restraints of trade. In ASTM activities, it is important to recognize that participants often represent competitive interests. Antitrust laws require that all competition be open and unrestricted.

It is ASTM's policy, and the policy of each of its committees and subcommittees, to conduct all business and activity in full compliance with international, federal and state antitrust and competition laws. The ASTM Board of Directors has adopted an antitrust policy which is found in Section 19 of ASTM Regulations Governing Technical Committees. All members need to be aware of and compliant with this policy. The Regulations are accessible on the ASTM website (http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/Regs.pdf) and copies of the antitrust policy are available at the registration desk.

© ASTM International 3

Welcome, Agenda Review, and F38 Overview (W+12) FAA Update (Cyrus Roohi) FAA Certification Process/KSU Update (Wes Ryan et al) ASSURE and ASTM F38 (Dallas Brooks) Main Committee Opening (W+12/DeJong) Lunch (on your own – several options) Sub Committee Reports F38.01 Airworthiness (Ajay Sehgal) F38.02 Operations (Mark Blanks) F38.03 Personnel (Scot Strimple)

Main Committee Closing (W+12/DeJong)

Agenda - Overview


Agenda – Details (note: times are flexible)

8:00 - 8:30 AM Sign in8:30 - 9:00 AM F38 Welcome and Standards Overview - Ted Wierzbanowski9:00 - 9:20 AM FAA UAS Overview – Cyrus Roohi

9:20 – 9:50 AM FAA Certification Process Update - Wes Ryan et al

9:50-10:10 AM KSU Standards Validation Project-Andi Meyer10:10 - 10:25 AM BREAK10:25 - 10:45 AM ASSURE Program and ASTM F38 - Dallas Brooks10:45 - 11:30 AM F38 Main Committee Opening11:30 - 1:00 PM LUNCH

1:00 - 3:00 PM

F38.01 Airworthiness SubcommitteeDesign, Construct, and Test of Fixed Wing (WK52962)

Design, Construct, and Test of VTOL (WKXXXXX)Software Dependability (WK50655)

Adaptive Algorithms (WK53403)Marking (WK27055)

Design, Construct, and Test (F2910-14)Design of Command and Control System (F3002-14a)

Use of Batteries (F3005-14a)Production Acceptance (F2911-14e1)

Quality Assurance (F3003-14)3:00 - 3:15 PM BREAK

3:15 - 5:15 PM

F38.02 Flight Operations SubcommitteeExtended/Beyond Visual Line of Sight (WK52059)

Operations Over People (WK52089)Operational Risk Assessment (WK49619)

Maintenance and Continued Airworthiness F2909-14)

F38.03 Personnel Training, Qualification, and Certfication Subcommittee

Pilot/Visual Observer Training (WK29229)Aircraft Flight Manual (F2908-16)

5 15 5 30 PM F38 M i C itt Cl i


Vision, Mission, & Structure

Focus on small UAS (sUAS/sRPAS)HistoryOther sUAS standards in development

Global Acceptance of sUAS Standards

F38 Overview


VisionRoutine, safe UAS operations in civil airspace through standardization.

MissionProduce practical, consensus standards that facilitate UAS operations

at an acceptable level of safety. These standards include the design, manufacture, maintenance and operation of unmanned aircraft systems as well as the training and qualification of personnel. Committee F38 supports industry, academia, government organizations and regulatory authorities.

ASTM International Committee F38


StructureF38.01 Airworthiness (Ajay Sehgal) Product (hardware/software) oriented- Safe design, construction, test, modification, & inspection of the individual

component, aircraft, or system

F38.02 Operations (Mark Blanks) Procedure/performance oriented Safe employment of the system within the aviation environment among

other aircraft & systems

F38.03 Personnel (Scott Strimple) Crew oriented Safe practices by the individuals responsible for employing the system



HistoryApril 2008 – U.S. FAA charters an Aviation Rulemaking Committee

(ARC) to examine a regulatory basis for permitting small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) to fly for compensation or hire ASTM is invited to participate in the ARC

April 2009 – ARC recommendations include reference to the use of industry consensus standards

September 2009 – FAA queries Standards Development Organizations (SDO) for their ability and resources to produce sUAS standards

April 2010 – FAA and ASTM sign a Memorandum of Understanding for the development of standards to support a new rule for sUAS

Focus on small UAS (sUAS/sRPAS)


History (cont)April 2010 to January 2015 – ASTM develops and publishes the

following sUAS standards in support of anticipated sUAS rule Design, construction, and test (F2910)

- Design of the C2 subsystem (F3002)- Use of batteries (F3005)

Production acceptance (F2911) Quality assurance (F3003) Maintenance and continued airworthiness (F2909) Aircraft flight manual (F2908)

February 2015 - FAA issues notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that does not reference consensus standards NOTE: the FAA could not tell ASTM that this change happened because of “ex

parte” rules



History (cont)What will be in the final rule is unknown and, depending on comments

received, consensus standards for detailed requirements may still be referenced and/or required

In the meantime, work will continue to improve currently published standards (previous chart) and develop new ones (following chart)

However, even without changes and/or updates, voluntary compliance with the current published standards should facilitate safe operations of sUAS in many of the commercial applications currently being considered by various entities around the world.



Other sUAS Standards in DevelopmentMore details can be provided “off line”: Operations over People (ballot closed 2 May) Extended and Beyond Visual Line of Sight Operations (ballot closed 28 Apr) Operational Risk Assessments (ballot closed 2 May) Software Dependability (revision ready for ballot) Adaptive Algorithms (TOR complete, work underway) Marking (ballot complete, on hold) Training of Pilots and Visual Observers (revision ready for ballot) Design, Construct, and Test (work underway on new standards)

- Fixed wing- VTOL

Micro UAS Requirements (TOR in work)


Continued participation in ASTM UAS standards development by sUAS stakeholders is highly encouraged


ASTM is a recognized international standards development organization 155+ members on F38 17 nations represented on F38 F38 Chairman is primary standards body representative on the JARUS

Stakeholder Consultation Board Global acceptance of ASTM sUAS standards is in best interest of the

sUAS/sRPAS community Benefit to builders: Lowers manufacturing costs/avoids multiple versions Benefit to buyers: Lowers acquisitions costs

ASTM is seeking more active participation from the global sUAS/sRPASstakeholder community Reduce duplication of standards development efforts Maximize effectiveness/efficiency of limited “volunteer” resources

Global Acceptance of sUAS Standards



Contact Information


Paul NelepovitzMembership Secretary [email protected]

Ted WierzbanowskiChairman [email protected]


www.astm.org

Questions/Discussion


www.astm.org

FAA Certification Process Update

ASTM Meeting at AUVSI2 May 2016James Foltz/Wes RyanFAA Small Airplane Directorate


www.astm.org


A1: Certification Test Case to Validate Industry Consensus Standards

Andi Meyer, UAS Research Program ManagerApplied Aviation Research Center (AARC)

Kansas State University

May 2, 2016

www. ASSUREuas.org


Introduction • Increasing demand for sUAS certification • sUAS manufacturers generally lack flight test experience• Existing FAA flight test requirements for manned aircraft

are, in many cases, are overly stringent or not directly applicable to sUAS

• Is a flight test program feasible using the ASTM requirements as a framework?

Project Goals• Review ASTM F38 Standards for flight test requirements • Recommend flight test requirements as needed

www. ASSUREuas.org


Research Approach• Create a flight test framework based on ASTM F38 requirements• Create a more comprehensive flight test framework that is based

upon existing standards, practices, and regulations• Compare the F38 flight test framework with the comprehensive

flight test framework to identify gaps in the F38 standards• Update compliance checklist and provide compliance issues

paper• Report findings to the FAA and ASTM F38

19

www. ASSUREuas.org

sUAS Flight Test Framework for CertificationFlight test framework – “A governing set of requirements that dictates the basic foundation of a flight test program”

Two versions:

1) ASTM F38-based framework• Implicit flight test requirements gathered from ASTM F38 standards• Requirements gathered from D&C and C2 standards

2) Comprehensive flight test framework• Drafted for comparison to F38 standards• References elements of Part 23 Subpart B, ASTM F37 (F2245.15),

and ASTM F38 standards• For fixed-wing aircraft only; multi-rotor flight testing is not

comparable• More comprehensive than F38 flight test framework

20


www. ASSUREuas.org

ASTM F38 Flight Test Framework

ASTM F38 Flight Test Framework Summary• Compiled ASTM F38 requirements related to flight test certification• Gathered implicit requirements from F2910 (D&C) and F3002 (C2)

• No explicit flight test requirements related to design V&V • Excluded F2910 production acceptance flight test requirements• Challenging to draw the line on what should be validated by flight test

Observations• Very few specific performance requirements for common aircraft

specifications• Stall speed and stall characteristics• Flight envelope determination• V-speeds, etc

• Demonstrates the need for a more comprehensive flight test framework and gap analysis

www. ASSUREuas.org



www. ASSUREuas.org

Comprehensive Flight Test Framework

Comprehensive Flight Test FrameworkObjective Develop a framework that clearly defines, organizes, and co-locates flight

test requirements for certification of a sUASApplicability sUAS as defined by Public Law 112-95 Subtitle B (< 55 lbs)

Fixed-wing aircraft All powerplants, fuel sources/battery types, and launch and recovery

systems Scope 14 CFR Part 23 Subpart B - Flight

Method The framework for flight test certification was developed through the following methods: A review of flight test requirements for normal, utility, aerobatic, and

commuter aircraft per AC 23-8C (focusing on Part 23, Subpart B), light sport aircraft per ASTM F37 standards, and sUAS per ASTM F38 standards and Draft AC 20-XX-XX

Combining expertise in the areas of flight testing, aircraft certification, and sUAS design, integration, and flight operations to collaboratively develop recommendations for fixed-wing sUAS flight test certification

www. ASSUREuas.org

Comparison of Flight Test Requirements

sUAS• ASTM F38• Draft AC-XX-XX, Appendix A

Commuter Aircraft• 14 CFR Part 23, Subpart B

Light Sport Aircraft• ASTM F37


www. ASSUREuas.org

Comprehensive Flight Test Framework Outcome• More comprehensive evaluation, drawing upon 14 CFR Part 23,

ASTM F37 Light Sport Aircraft Standard, and F38 ASTM• Follows the organizational structure of 14 CFR Part 23• Requirements are adapted specifically for sUAS• Specific criterion for some requirements still need to be determined

• High speed testing• Dynamic stability• Sense and avoid system tests• Etc.


www. ASSUREuas.org

Comparison of Flight Test Requirements Continued


www. ASSUREuas.org



www. ASSUREuas.org

Comparison of Flight Test Requirements - SummaryFew parallels between F38 and F37, Part 23F38 standards do not cover many of the “typical” flight test

certification requirementsNoticeable gaps in the F38 standards exist within performance,

controllability and maneuverability, stability, trim, spinning, and ground handling

Part 23 does not address key aspects of UAS such as flight test requirements for ground control stations, command and control, lost link, fly away protection, detect & avoid


www. ASSUREuas.org


In general, Part 23 requirements denoted as being applicable to sUAS per Draft AC-XX-XX were adapted for sUAS and incorporated into the comprehensive framework

Some topics require further discussion:• High speed flight• Dynamic stability• Etc.


www. ASSUREuas.org

Conclusions• Comprehensive flight test framework is probably too rigorous• Needs UAS specific flight test requirements developed (ground

control stations, command and control, lost link, fly away protection, detect & avoid)

• Recommend following Part 23 and LSA F37 organizational structure

• Understand the “why” behind manned aircraft requirements to translate into unmanned requirements

• Importance of scalable flight test requirements (UAS size/weight, CONOPs, safety systems onboard)

• New standards needed for certification flight testing for as well as best practices and safety guidelines for flight testing


www. ASSUREuas.org

Work In Progress

Compliance Checklist Review and Analysis Background:

• Rather than utilizing all requirements, OEM’s choose select requirements from F38 standards

Task Methods:• Distinguish between “design guidance” and

requirements that are necessary for certification• Need to dive into MOCs to uncover gaps and

insufficiencies • Reliance on existing standards is good when appropriate,

but may not be sufficient for UAS (e.g. DO-160, DO-178, MIL-HDBKs)

www. ASSUREuas.org

Future Work Recommendations

Recommendations / Future Work

• Explore additional aspects of flight test that are unique to UAS and not fully addressed in the comprehensive flight test framework

• Flight test requirements and practices for multi-rotors

• Guide sUAS through the certification process, to include flight testing, in collaboration with OEMs; provide recommendations for standards revisions

www. ASSUREuas.org

A1 Certification Test Case to Validate sUAS Industry

Consensus

Questions?


www.astm.org

ASSURE and ASTM F38

ASTM Meeting at AUVSI2 May 2016Dallas BrooksASSURE


www.astm.org



www.astm.org

Main Committee Opening

ASTM Meeting at AUVSI2 May 2016Ted Wierzbanowski - Chair, ASTM International Committee F38Christine DeJong – Staff Manager, ASTM International Committee F38


Call to order (W+12) Approval of the agenda (Action: motion, second, vote) Normal formal meeting processes (DeJong) Approval of previous meeting minutes (W+12) Membership report Old business Officers election results

New business Discuss terminology issues with current standards

- Standard Terminology for UAS -Recess

Agenda – F38 Main Committee Opening


Normal formal meeting processes (DeJong)

Approval of previous meeting minutes (W+12) (Action: motion, second, vote)

F38 Main Committee Opening (cont)


Membership report

- Since May 2015 meeting:35 new members joined F38

34 members left committee (28 didn’t renew in time)

15 countries represented: Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand; Norway, Singapore, UK, USA.



Old business2016 – 2017 Term Officers Election ResultsChairman – Ted WierzbanowskiVice Chairman – Philip KenulRecording Secretary – Kirk KloeppelMembership Secretary – Paul Nelepovitz

New business - Standard Terminology for UAS

Approach & Management

Recess



www.astm.org

LUNCH


www.astm.org

F38.01 Airworthiness Subcommittee

ASTM Meeting at AUVSI2 May 2016Ajay SehgalChair, ASTM International Subcommittee F38.01


Call to order (Sehgal) Approval of agenda (Action: motion, second, vote)

Membership report (Sehgal) Standards overview (Sehgal) Task group reports (TG Chairs) New business What’s next? (Sehgal) Items from the floor?

Summary action items (Sehgal) Adjournment

F38.01 Agenda


F38.01 Membership Report

Subcommittee is in balance with 31 producer votes available. Voting Right are shown on the subcommittee meeting attendance list.Questions or concerns should be directed to the subcommittee chairman.


F38.01 Standards Overview

Approved Standards:• F2512-07 Quality Assurance for Light UAS

• F2585-08 Design and Perf of Pneumatic-Hydraulic UAS Launch System

• F2851-10 UAS Registration & Marking (excluding sUAS)

• F2910-14 Design, Construction and Test W+12

• F2911-14e1 Production Acceptance W+12

• F3003-14 Quality Assurance W+12

• F3002-14a Design of Command and Control System Sehgal (Box)

• F3005-14a Batteries for use Sehgal (Alfieri)

Draft Standards:• WK27055 Marking Kenul

• WK50655 Ensuring Dependability of Software Cook

• WK53403 Adaptive Algorithms Cook

• WK52962 Design, Construction and Test – Fixed Wing Daniels

• WK53964 Design, Construction and Test – VTOL Strimple


F2512-07 (Quality Assurance for Light UAS) Status: Withdrawn as of 12/31/15 Main committee must approve it by 31 Dec 2015 or will be withdrawn Draft (WK51791) in balloting for withdraw 2 Negatives; May need to re-consider the decision to withdraw

F2585-08 (Pneumatic-Hydraulic Launch System) Status: Overdue Standard must be revised or re-approved by 31 Dec 2016 or will be withdrawn Draft (WK51789) in balloting for re-approval One Negative; may lead to new revision ACTION: Doug Marshall to address Negative vote

F2851-10 (UAS Registration & Marking- excluding sUAS) Status: Ballot action required ACTION: Phil Kenul to review for ballot action

Overdue StandardsStatus


Designation: F2910-14

Approved: 15 Jan 2014

Status: See next chart(s)

TG Lead:Ted Wierzbanowski

TG Members:N/A

(New Task Groups are being formed for separate standards for Fixed Wing and VTOL sUAS)

Summary:

This specification defines the design, construction, and test requirements for a small unmanned aircraft system (sUAS). It is written for all sUAS that are permitted to operate over a defined unpopulated area and in airspace authorized by a CAA. It is assumed that a visual observer(s) will provide for the sense-and-avoid requirement to prevent collisions with other aircraft and that the maximum range and altitude at which the sUAS can be flown at will be specified by the CAA.

Design, Construct, and TestOverview


Current standard will most likely end up as a “best practice” for operations under the final sUAS 107 rule, 333s, and the EU “Open” category

Current standard will require a minor revision (e.g. changing shall to should/may and calling it a guide or practice)

New “Design, Construct, and Test” standards are being written for other than 107 and 333 applications including EVLOS / BVLOS and Operations over People. They will address FAA and other stakeholder comments, will be more specific, and will be split into two separate standards for:

- Fixed wing (Jonathan Daniels- Task Group lead)- VTOL (Scott Strimple- Task Group lead)

Design, Construct, and TestStatus






TG Members:Need new members for any revision

Summary:This standard defines the production acceptance requirements for a small unmanned aircraft system (sUAS).

Production AcceptanceOverview


Being reviewed by the FAA Generally in good shape. Minimal comments received from the FAA

Office of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Still getting comments from the FAA Small Airplane Directorate and

production offices

Revision may, or may not, be required for operations other than what will be allowed under the final sUAS rule. If so: New Task Group will, most likely, be formed New Task Group leader may also be needed

Production AcceptanceStatus






TG Members:Need new members for any revision

Summary:This standard defines the quality assurance requirements for the design, manufacture, and production of a small unmanned aircraft system (sUAS).

Quality AssuranceOverview


Being reviewed by the FAA Generally in good shape. Minimal comments received from the FAA

Office of Unmanned Aircraft Systems IntegrationStill getting comments from the FAA Small Airplane Directorate and

QA offices

Revision may, or may not, be required for operations other than what will be allowed under the final sUAS rule. If so: New Task Group will, most likely, be formed New Task Group leader may also be needed

Quality AssuranceStatus


Designation: WK27055

Last Ballot: Closed 19 Nov 2015(re-draft complete)

Status: See next chart

TG Lead:Phil Kenul NOAA

TG Members:Kenneth Fugate FAA

D. Miller Gate

Martin Heesuck Bombardier

Andy Johnson-Laird Johnson-Laird, Inc.

R. Norris Oneil

Andrew Thurling AeroVironment

Summary:This Standard prescribes guidelines for the display of marks to indicate appropriate sUAS registration and ownership. ICAO has left the designation of sUAS to each State and the States will develop rules and regulations for sUAS.

MarkingOverview


Marking Status

Standard revised and simplified References and terminology needs to be updated Now applies to model aircraft

- Clarifies “State” aircraft terminology- Eliminates requirement for “fireproof” or permanent ID plate

(Unless required by CAA)- Addressing Micro UAS ARC recommendations- Revision will be out for re-ballot after feedback from FAA



Last Balloted: March 4, 2016


TG Lead:Steve Cook Northrop-Grumman

TG Members:Eric Dunn AeroVironmentB J Gopinath AirwareJesse Kallman AirwarePaul Komarek Google Project WingAndy Lacher MITREBuddy Michini AirwareAjay Sehgal WyleRobin Sova FAAAndrew Slater PrecisionHawkAndrew Thurling AeroVironmentMike Vukas FAA

Summary:

The standard intends to establish the dependability of software items in the sUAS that implement functions essential to safety. The dependability includes both the safety and security aspects of the software. It may be used by itself or in conjunction with other standards such as DO-178C, as deemed appropriate by the sUAS manufacturer in accordance with CAA guidance.

.

Software DependabilityOverview


Many small UAS (< 55 lb) manufacturers are implementing software outside the traditional norms for aviation (e.g., DO-178C)

56

Introduction and Motivation

Agile / Modern software tools

Highly Networked

Externally Developed Software

WK50655 ASTM Standard Practice for Ensuring Dependability of Software used in UAS

Frequent SW updates

Cost Risk

How can we ensure that UAS software is dependable (e.g., safe and secure) for flight critical functions?


Background

Category ID Level Assessment Task Description Security Space Aviation Medical Nuclear Rail

US ‐ Use of SOUP

US.1 MINIMAL QL

Conduct Hazard Analysis

Conduct an analysis to determine the hazards and impacts associated with the potential malfunction, failure, or exploitation of the SOUP. Define the SOUP's intended function. Determine the consequences and possible mitigations for each potential malfunction, failure, threat, or exploitation. Document how the SOUP fails (gracefully or suddenly). The analysis should be conducted in a manner similar to SAE ARP 4761, MIL‐STD‐882, or equivalent and should address risk associated with potential security and safety vulnerabilities (e.g., RTCA DO‐326, Airworthiness Security Process Specification).

BSIMM AM1.3

NASA‐STC‐

8719.13C, App. A, F

RTCA DO‐278A

RTCA DO‐326 Sec 2.3.3

IEC 62304; see

Section 7.1

European Regulatrs;

see Section 2.2.3

DOT/FRAlORD‐03/14Final Report April 2003; see

Figure 3 page 21.

MITRE Dependability Framework for Software of Unknown Pedigree - Best practices from 6 industries

(2013-2015)

sUAS Case Studies with Airware,

Google X, and PrecisionHawk

(2014-2015)

ASTM Standards Development (2015-2016)

AerovironmentAirwareAmazon Prime AirFAA

Google XMITRENorthrop GrummanPrecisionHawkWyle


Standard Level of Rigor - Comparison

58

ASTM F39 Proposed(Aircraft Systems)

4 requirements

“Light Sport”

RTCA DO-178C68 Objectives (Level C)

Part 23

Class 1

WK50655 (sUAS)40 Tier 3

Requirements

WK50655 traceable to DO-178C Level D

(26 Objectives)

sUAS

Proposed


Summary and Next Steps

59

• Standard for Ensuring the Dependability of Software for UAS –Ready for Second Ballot

• Best Practices from other industries + sUAS Industry Best Practices

• Safety + Security

• Externally Developed Software + Internally Developed Software

• Discussions ongoing with FAA Small Airplane Directorate and other airworthiness authorities as to how standard will be invoked (e.g., AC 21.17(b), etc.)

• Initiating new ASTM standard for adaptive algorithms, “WK53403 Methods to Safely Bound Flight Behavior of UAS Containing Adaptive Algorithms”



Last Balloted: New


TG Lead:Steve Cook Northrop-Grumman

TG Members:Anna Dietrich TerrafugiaEric Dunn AeroVironmentMike Garland NASAB J Gopinath AirwareLoyd Hook University of TulsaDave Jenson FAAChuck Johnson GIUAS LLCJesse Kallman AirwarePaul Komarek Google Project WingAndy Lacher MITREIfe Ogunleye FAAWes Ryan FAAAjay Sehgal WyleMark Skoog NASA ArmstrongThanh Trang FAAAndrew Thurling AeroVironmentJohn Vanhoudt FAAMike Vukas FAA

Summary:

The standard intends to develop a standard practice to safely bound the flight behavior of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) containing adaptive algorithms, sometimes referred to as “autonomous”, “non-deterministic”, ”complex”, “intelligent”, and similar terms. Adaptive algorithms may cause the UAS to fly in a manner that is difficult to predict due to compounded implications from factors such as sensor measurement precision, environmental variables, resource availability, and aircraft system state. Verification of these algorithms may be too challenging to use conventional software approval methods such as RTCA DO-178C.

Bounding Adaptive AlgorithmsOverview


• November 2015: FAA – NASA – AFRL – MITRE Workshop on Certifying Non-Deterministic Systems

• Motivation: Several sUAS manufacturers desire highly automated functionality• Potential extension to General Aviation

• Outcome: For sUAS, explore certifying the “wrapper” around the adaptive algorithm to bound flight behavior

• Leverage NASA research on Trusted Autonomy

61

Background and Motivation

WK53403 ASTM Standard Practice for Methods to Safely Bound Flight Behavior of Unmanned Aircraft

Systems Containing Adaptive Algorithms


Requirements Scope

Choose Insert > Header and Footer to change DateChoose Insert > Header and Footer to change Presentation Title 62


Way Forward

63

• Preliminary requirements scope and high level requirements developed through weekly telecoms

• 8 telecoms so far

• Face-to-Face meetings planned to develop detailed requirements

• First F2F meeting planned for June 2016

• Goal: Internal Draft ready by October 2016

• Goal: Ready for F38 balloting by December 2016



Last Balloted: New


TG Lead:Jonathan Daniels PACI

TG Members:TBD PrecisionHawk

TBD Google

James Folz FAA

Jacquelyn Erinne FAA

Andy Johnson-Laird Johnson-Laird Inc.

Summary:

To develop an ASTM standard that defines the requirements for Design, Construct and Test of Fixed Wing sUAS. The standard will address the requirements and/or best practices for design, construction and test of an unmanned aircraft. The intent is for this standard to support aircraft that will receive type certification by a CAA, and provide standards of practice for self- or third-party determinations of airworthiness for UAS.

Design, Construct and Test of Fixed Wing sUASOverview


Formed new working group

TOR (Term of Reference) finalized

In development since March 2016

Built upon original F2910-14 standard, updated with multiple industry best practices (UAS, advanced ultralights, very light aircraft and light sport aircraft)

Initial “split” draft complete Integrates FAA comments on baseline standard References several ASTM standards under development: C2,

EVLOS/BVLOS operations, and Operations over people

Draft standard for EXCOM review expected by June 2016

Design, Construct and Test of Fixed Wing sUASStatus



Last Balloted: New


TG Lead:Scott Strimple CinemAerial Visuals

TG Members:Andy Johnson-LairdRich Hansen AMAWes Ryan FAA – ACE114Walter Stockwell DJICraig Ranta AeryonEd De Reyes Water West Ent.Johnhenri Richardson

Summary:

The standard builds upon F2910-14 and specifically addresses the requirements and/or best practices for design, construction and testing of VTOL small unmanned aircraft. The intent is for this std to support sUA VTOL aircraft that will require a level of CAA type certification and provide standards of practice for self- or third-party determination of airworthiness for sUAS.

Design, Construct and Test of VTOL sUASOverview


New working group to start May 2016

Team Members finalized

TOR (Term of Reference) finalized

Build upon baseline F2910-14 standard, specifically focusing on VTOL sUA design, construct and testing to address FAA comments on baseline standard 21.17b applications including EVLOS/BVLOS and Operations

over people

Draft standard for EXCOM review expected by June 2016

Design, Construct and Test of VTOL sUASStatus


Designation: F3002-14a

Approved: 1 Jun 2014


TG Lead:Frank Box MITRE

TG Members:Anna Dietrich TerrafugiaJonathan Daniels PraxisLeo Globus MITRERavi Jain FAARobert Joslin FAACraig Ranta AeryonJohnhenri RichardsonSteve Walker NASA

Summary:

This specification defines the designrequirements for the command and control system of a small unmanned aircraft system (sUAS). It is written for all sUAS that are permitted to operate in airspace authorized by a CAA. It is assumed that one or more visual observers will provide for the sense-and-avoid requirement to prevent collisions with other aircraft and that the maximum range and altitude at which the sUAS can be flown at will be specified by the CAA.

Design of the Command and Control SystemOverview


Ballot for revised version closed Dec 2015 4 negative votes received in Nov-Dec F38 balloting

New task group has been formed Comments spreadsheet prepared 27 April 2016 kickoff telecon September 2016 completion target

Key issues include: Scope and applicability (EVLOS/BVLOS vs VLOS operations and

operations over people vs not over people) Standardized terminology (be consistent with related standards) Should downlink (currently optional) be mandatory?

Design of the Command and Control SystemStatus


Designation: F3005-14a

Approved: 1 Jun 2014


TG Lead:Tom Alfieri Honeywell

TG Members (and other contributors):Geoff Bland NASAMel Duval USAFMike Logan sUAVELab, NASAFred Marks FMA DirectGerry Marsters CelerisTed Miles NASADon Elliot L-3 Comm.Mike Rawson HoneywellVijay Somandepalli ExponentAndrew Thurling AeroVironmentBen Walsh FAAClint Winchester Navy

Summary:This standard defines the requirements for batteries used in small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS). This standard is mandatory at any point in the sUAS system in which batteries are used, except for payload downlinks that have no effect on flight safety.

Use of BatteriesOverview


Use of BatteriesStatus

Standards Validation Program test results in review− 1 failure (enclosure color)− Unknowns due to information unavailable for the test subject− Some suggestions for criteria definition and wording clarification

Recent FAA comments currently in review− Recommending use of other standards (UL 2054, UN 38.3)− Suggested wording changes− Requesting some explanation of specific provisions

June 2016 completion target

General questions to be considered− Specific reference to primary (non-rechargeable) batteries needed?

Change of Task Group Leader – Interested individuals may inquire with Ajay Sehgal or Tom Alfieri


New business What’s Next?

F38.01 Closing

Future efforts may include: New standards (as required) Revision to standards based on comments from ballot

and FAA review(s)

Need qualified and self-driven people Task Group leads Task Group members


New Business Items from the floor?

Summary action items (Sehgal) Adjournment (Action: motion, second, vote)

F38.01 Closing (cont)


www.astm.org

F38.02 Flight Operations Subcommittee

ASTM Meeting at AUVSI2 May 2016Mark BlanksChair, ASTM International Subcommittee F38.02


Call to order (Blanks)

Approval of agenda (Action: motion, second, vote)

Membership report

Ballot results and Task Group reports Operational Risk Assessment (Wolf) – WK49619

Extended/Beyond Visual Line-of-Sight (Wierzbanowski) – WK52059

Operations Over People (Marshall) – WK52089

Maintenance and Continued Airworthiness (Blanks) – WK53686

Standards Requiring Review

Summary of action items (Blanks)

New business Items from the floor?

Adjournment

Agenda – F38.02


Membership Report : Subcommittee is balanced: 29 producer votes available.

Ballot Results and Task Group Reports Operational Risk Assessment (Wolf) – WK49619

Extended/Beyond Visual Line-of-Sight (Wierzbanowski) – WK52059

Operations Over People (Marshall) – WK52089

Maintenance and Continued Airworthiness (Blanks) – WK53686

F38.02 – Operations



Ballots: Closed 19 Dec 15

Opened Again Closing 02 May 16


TG Lead:Harrison Wolf USC

TG Members:Nick Flom ND Test Site

Brett Portwood FAAHeather Harris MTSIThomas Murray InsituAndy Thurling AeroVironmentGeorge Small Moog, IncAndi Meyer KSU

Summary:This is a guide for preparing Operational Risk Assessments to be used for supporting sUAS (under 55 pounds) design, and operation applications to a GAA) by individuals, companies, and civil authorities committed to the safe operation of sUAS. It is intended to provide an understanding of the risk assessment process as a baseline standard for proponents of sUAS designs covered under the small size designation of a GAA size/energy spectrum that are not generally designed with the rigorous design assurance standards that exist in more complex aircraft.

Operational Risk AssessmentOverview


1st Ballot Closed 2nd Ballot Closed 3rd Ballot Open Content includes CONOPS now as discussed at TAACNOTES: This standard is key to any sUAS operation not allowed by the final

ruleThe system description and CONOPS sections in the EVLOS/BVLOS

and Operations over People standard has been moved to this document

Commenters were encouraged to mention whether this seems appropriate or not

Operational Risk AssessmentStatus


Resolved Issues: Definitions of

BVLOS/BLOS/EVLOS/RLOS Is this true? Other groups keep

changing… Checklists and examples of hazards

were non-comprehensive Harmonization of definitions between

international groups Spectrum allocation beyond scope

Addressed Issues: Concern that all operations, missions

and areas of operation will need to be overseen by an engineer rather than competent operator

PIC needs to be more tightly defined Catastrophic vs. non-catastrophic is still

an issue. Individuals want guidance

Many comments wanting to expand “SMS Terminology” and “Change Management”

Operational Risk AssessmentStatus (cont)

2nd Ballot: 3 Negatives 98% Acceptance Rate


Resolved Issues: Harmonization of terminology Used definitions from other groups

Feedback that the definitions had changed…

Removed appendices for clarification

Removed redundant appendices Seeking suggestions on CONOPS

No negatives asserting CONOPs doesn’t belong in ORA

Unresolved Issues: CONOPS section uses “Must” which

we didn’t define, probably will use Shall…

Aided Vision definition Internal consistency between likelihood

and probability Severity definitions – are they

consistent in text?

Operational Risk AssessmentStatus (cont)

3rd Ballot: 2 Negative Thus Far (28% returned, 96% approval)


A lot of positive reception of the standard Appendices have been reduced, but need better integration across textSafety Management Systems (SMS) are being referenced tangentially

in comments - Change management, residual risk Severity Definitions may not be harmonized with other organizationsAs a Best Practice, can we use “Shall” or do we need to stick to

“Should” and “May?” Currently we do not call out referenced items within the document, so

“references” may need to be changed to something elseAll definitions must be traceable, we cannot simply add or change

definitions without a basis for that change. sUAS NPRM 14 CFR 107 ICAO SMM FAA Guidance ASTM Standards – More work needs to be done to harmonize between

standards – Definitions seem to change between balloting

Operational Risk AssessmentConclusions



Last Balloted: Closed 28 Apr 16



TG Members:Jon Daniels PraxisSean Cassidy AmazonDoug Marshall TrueNorthBuck Joslin FAANicolas Flom ND Test SiteAndy Johnson-Laird Johnson-Laird, Inc.Jarret Larrow FAAThomas Rambo AltavianAndy Thurling AeroVironmentJay Neylon FAA

Summary:This practice defines the process to be followed to obtain approval from a NAA to operate a sUAS to fly at extended visual line of sight (EVLOS) or beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) or both. It requires a risk based approach to obtaining this approval as well as specific potential risk mitigation strategies a proponent could propose to a NAA.

Extended/Beyond Visual Line of SightOverview


2nd Ballot closed 28 Apr 2016 Hybrid standard (process and specifics) Requirements include:

- Operational risk assessment (separate standard) that includes:- System definition- CONOPS

- Proposed risk mitigations (some potential ones identified)- Refinement until joint determination that risks are acceptable

Several negative comments received All comments will be addressed by the Task Group over the

next month.

Extended/Beyond Visual Line of SightStatus



Last Balloted: November 2015


TG Lead:Doug Marshall TrueNorth

TG Members:Brian Argrow CU Boulder

Benjamin Miller DraganFly

Paul McDuffee Insitu

Andy Johnson-Laird Johnson-Laird, Inc.

Alan Frazier UND

Paul Albuquerque FAA

Rich Hanson AMA

Scott Strimple CinemAerial

Summary:This practice defines the process to be followed to obtain approval from a NAA to operate a sUAS to fly over people. It requires a risk based approach to obtaining this approval as well as specific potential risk mitigation strategies a proponent could propose to an NAA. .

Operations over PeopleOverview


Currently in ballot (closes 2 May) Hybrid standard (process and specifics) Requirements include:

- Operational risk assessment (separate standard) that includes:- System definition- CONOPS

- Proposed risk mitigations (some potential ones identified)- Refinement until joint determination that risks are acceptable

All comments will be addressed by the Task Group over the next month.

Operations over PeopleStatus



Last Balloted: 2014

Status: Developing revision to F2909-14

TG Lead:Mark Blanks

TG Members:Core

Mark Blanks MAAP Rob Winn FAABrad Hayden Robotic SkiesJon Daniels Praxis AerospaceSteve Ley K-State

AdvisingAjay Sehgal WyleSilas Still FAA

Summary:This specification establishes the standard practice for the maintenance and continued airworthiness of sUAS.

Maintenance and Continued Airworthiness Overview


New task group formed in March 2016

Revising F2909-14 to address concerns with existing standard Electric propulsion Maintenance manuals Different risk classes (may go beyond sUAS) Terminology, record keeping, and more…

Terms of Reference approved by F38 ExCOM Supporting type certification process Awaiting final FAA approval

Balloting Addressing numerous comments from F2909 ballots Hope to have new ballot out by mid-summer 2016

Maintenance and Continued Airworthiness Status


Standards Requiring ReviewF2849-10 Standard Practice for Handling of Unmanned Aircraft

Systems at Divert Airfields (Overdue)

• Need Technical Contact to lead review for ballot action

Summary Action Items (Blanks)

New Business Items from the Floor?

Adjournment (Action: motion, second, vote)

F38.02 – Operations Closing


www.astm.org

F38.03 Personnel Training, Qualification and Certification Subcommittee

ASTM Meeting at TAAC2 May 2106Scott StrimpleChair, ASTM International Subcommittee F38.03


Call to Order (W+12) Approval of agenda (Action: motion, second, vote) Membership report Task group reports Pilot/Visual Observer Training (Strimple/W+12) – WK29229 Aircraft Flight Manual (W+12) – F2908-14

New business Summary of action items (W+12) Adjournment

F38.03 Agenda


F38.03 Membership Report


Pilot/Visual Observer Training (Strimple/W+12) – WK29229

Aircraft Flight Manual (W+12) – F2908-14

F38.03 Task Group Reports



Last Balloted: Early 2015

Status: Out for ballot See next chart(s)

TG Lead:Scott Strimple

TG Members:Andy Johnson-Laird Johnson-Laird, Inc.Dave MillerGus Calderon Airspace Consulting

Silas Stills FAA

Summary:

Recognizing the sUA performance capability to operate in the same airspace used by aircraft carrying people, this standard intends to establish the recommended training and knowledge necessary for pilots and visual observers to conduct safe sUAS operations.

Pilot/Visual Observer TrainingOverview


Pilot/Visual Observer TrainingStatus

- Streamlined original WK29222 document to remove regulatory and certification language

- Re-organized knowledge and practical experience content

- Tweaking language ( should, shall)

- Addressing comments from cadre

- Awaiting input from FAA AFS 400

- Out for 2nd ballot in early May 2016



Approved: 15 Jan 14



TG Members:Paul McDuffee InsituNew members may be needed to resolve commentsJay Neylon FAA

Summary:This specification provides the minimum requirements for an Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) for an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) designed, manufactured, and operated in the small UAS (sUAS) category as defined by a National Aviation Authority (NAA). Depending on the size and complexity of the sUAS, an AFM may also contain the instructions for maintenance and continuing airworthiness for owner / operator authorized maintenance. .

Aircraft Flight ManualOverview


Aircraft Flight ManualStatus

Minor revision recently published Changed GAA to CAA Revised definition of “basic empty weight” and “landing area” Added term “operator” (aka – a service provider like United) Deleted term “abnormal” Cleaned up of some of Section 7 to read better Removed “optional” and adds items to the engine portion Clarified “Center of Gravity” section

Will be working with FAA on process to issue a FAA Notice of Availability (NOA) on this (and other) standards


New business

Items from the floor?

Summary of action items (W+12)

Adjournment (Action: motion, second, vote)

F38.03 Closing


www.astm.org

Main Committee Closing

ASTM Meeting at AUVSI2 May 2016Ted Wierzbanowski - Chair, ASTM International Committee F38Christine DeJong – Staff Manager, ASTM International Committee F38


Call to order (W+12) Approval of the agenda (Action: motion, second, vote) Reports F38.01 (Sehgal) F38.02 (Blanks) F38.03 (Strimple) Staff Report (DeJong)

Summary action items (W+12) New business Items from the floor?

Future meetings Adjournment (Action: motion, second, vote)

Agenda – F38 Main Committee Closing

Presented to:

By:

Date:

Federal AviationAdministrationFAA UAS Status

UpdateThe Importance of Consensus Standards

ASTM F38 Committee

James Blyn, Rotorcraft DirectorateJames D Foltz, SAD UAS Program ManagerCyrus Roohi, UAS integration OfficeWes Ryan, SAD UAS Certification Lead

2 May 2016

Federal AviationAdministration

Challenge: Safe UAS Integration

2

Seek Balance

FAA SafetyGoals

Low Regulatory Burden

Risk Based Rules

InnovativeTechnology

Industry Standards

CONOP Mitigations

New BusinessConcepts

Rapid IndustryGrowth Custom

ComplianceOpen Market &

Airspace


UAS Safety – From Experience

3

Successful history of integrating new technologies

into the National Airspace System (NAS) safely

Proven risk-based approach to safety

Balance of acceptable level of safety with societal safety

demands

FAA will apply a risk-

based approach to

UAS Certification


9

Extent of Safety Effort

SEEK Too much rigor…→ innovative safety enhancements don’t reach the fleet

→ Finite dollars that could be spent on safety enhancements go elsewhere

→ fatal accidents increase

Establish appropriate balance in our

regulatory approach

System Safety – The Safety Continuum

Too little rigor…→ safety escapes

→ fatal accidents increase

Achieve safety objectives while

imposing the least burden on

society.

+

-

Risk of accidents due to lack of safety

innovation

Total Risk

Risk of accidents due to inadequate

safety program


Applying Our Safety Continuum

5Level Of Cert Rigor

Part

91

Ops

135

Ops

121

Ops


6

Existing Regulatory Framework


Future Regulatory Continuum

7


How Can You Help Get Us There?• Consensus Standards Are Critical to

Managing FAA Resources/Involvement – UAS certification (airworthiness, design, production, &

operational safety/integration)– For § 107 sUAS – Standards provide best-practices &

standardization for design/production/operations– For future § 21.19X – Self-compliance process,

WHEN the standards are mature enough to allow it– For § 21.17(b) - Use as acceptable cert basis for type

certification– Potential Use for Human Injury Thresholds, Test

Methods, Component Acceptance Testing, etc.

8


Future Regulatory Continuum

9

Use of F38 Standards

•Design & Construction

•Production Acceptance & Q/A

•Maintenance

•Extended Ops/BVLOS

•Ops Over People

•Operational Risk Assessment

•Software & Adaptive Systems

•Human Injury Thresholds & Testing

Future Use for Larger UAS

•Expand Standards to Cover Larger UAS & more Complex Integration?


Value of ASTM Process• Relies on Combined Expertise of Industry & FAA• Reaches Standard Basis Through Collaboration and

Consensus of those affected• Finds Common Ground Among Competing Interests

(Blue Ocean vs. Red Ocean)• Facilitates Transparency - Information Open and

Available to all Interested parties 24/7• Ensures Due Process by Considering all Views• Timeliness & Reduced Administrative Delays• Delivers Globally Relevant Standards

10


EASA – Seeking Similar Standards

OPEN:Low risk No involvement of Aviation AuthorityLimitations : Visual line of sight, Maximum Altitude, distance from airport and sensitive zones

SPECIFICIncreased riskOperations Authorisation with operations manualSpecific qualification of drone, personnel, equipment based on safety assessment

CERTIFIEDRegulatory regime similar to manned aviationEASA and Authority Certificates

29 April 2016 EUROCAE symposium 2016 11


Moving Ahead - Lessons Learned• LSA

– Rule was Published, Yet Standards Needed Work– Standards were based on mature aircraft design

standards – we don’t have those yet for UAS.– Coordination with all FAA Stakeholders was critical– Even more critical for UAS due to ties between basic

aircraft design and operational requirements• For UAS, Focal Points will be identified in

AUS, AIR, AFS, ATO, AVP, etc.– Expanding Involvement from AFS-80 to Offices of

Primary Responsibility throughout FAA

12


Lessons Learned for Type Cert

• An Applicant is required to:– Comply with service difficulty reporting requirements

(§ 21.3)– Submit all data showing compliance (§ 21.21(b))– Define the configuration and the design features of

the product (§ 21.31)– Conduct all inspections and tests to show

compliance of design and product (§ 21.33(b))

13

Applicants & Approval Holders for

Type Certification

Are legally responsible for fully complying with all applicable regulations (ref. 14 CFR Part 21)


TC Applicant’s Responsibility

• Language such as “as determined by the manufacturer” is not acceptable– Data from the manufacturer MAY be acceptable for

the application– It is the applicant’s responsibility to show compliance

• Change management of type design requirements are also prescribed in 14 CFR Part 21

14


Specific TC Usage of Standards• Design & Construction: Took advantage of

K-State validation research work– Cleaning up gaps in the standards

• Need to add system safety requirement– MOC is appropriately scaled for risk (qualitative)

• Need to address human factors evaluation• Many optional requirements changed to

mandatory for issuance of a TC

15


Specific Feedback on Standards• Battery Standard

– Very Thorough – Closest one to a final/usable state• New Standards for BVLOS/Ops Over People

– Best Practice for preparing an Operational Risk Assessment (ORA)

– Balloting - These are critical to future industry needs• We Really Appreciate Your Involvement!

– Please Keep Working, and Keep Pulling in New Support

– Encourage International Involvement – Engage Remotely

16


Conclusions• Be Pro-active with New Standards

Development• Create Third Party Test Process Against

Standards (UL) to Reduce Burden and Increase Standardization

• Human Risk Criteria & Test Methods Need to be Defined for Ops Over People

• “The More You Define, the Less We Need to Design”

17


Andi Meyer, UAS Research Program ManagerApplied Aviation Research Center (AARC)

Kansas State University

May 2, 2016

www. ASSUREuas.org


Introduction • Increasing demand for sUAS certification • Varying degrees of flight test experience among sUAS

manufacturers • Existing FAA flight test requirements for manned aircraft are,

in many cases, are overly stringent or not directly applicable to sUAS

Project Goals• Review ASTM F38 Standards for flight test requirements • Recommend flight test requirements as needed • Is a flight test program feasible using the ASTM requirements

as a framework?

www. ASSUREuas.org


Research Approach• Create a flight test framework based on ASTM F38 requirements• Create a more comprehensive flight test framework that is based

upon existing standards, practices, and regulations• Compare the F38 flight test framework with the comprehensive

flight test framework to identify gaps in the F38 standards• Update compliance checklist and provide compliance issues

paper• Report findings to the FAA and ASTM F38

3

www. ASSUREuas.org

sUAS Flight Test Framework for CertificationFlight test framework – “A governing set of requirements that dictates the basic foundation of a flight test program”

Two versions:

1) ASTM F38-based framework• Implicit flight test requirements gathered from ASTM F38 standards• Requirements gathered from D&C and C2 standards

2) Comprehensive flight test framework• Drafted for comparison to F38 standards• References elements of Part 23 Subpart B, ASTM F37 (F2245.15),

and ASTM F38 standards• For fixed-wing aircraft only; multi-rotor flight testing is not

comparable• More comprehensive than F38 flight test framework

4


www. ASSUREuas.org

Excerpt from ASTM F38 Flight Test Framework


www. ASSUREuas.org


ASTM F38 Flight Test Framework Summary• Compiled ASTM F38 requirements related to flight test certification• Gathered implicit requirements from F2910 (D&C) and F3002 (C2)

• No explicit flight test requirements related to design V&V • Excluded F2910 production acceptance flight test requirements• Challenging to draw the line on what should be validated by flight test

Observations• Very few specific performance requirements for common aircraft

specifications• Stall speed and stall characteristics• Flight envelope determination• V-speeds, etc

• Demonstrates the need for a more comprehensive flight test framework and gap analysis

www. ASSUREuas.org


Comprehensive Flight Test FrameworkObjective Develop a framework that clearly defines, organizes, and co-

locates flight test requirements for certification of a sUAS

Applicability Fixed-wing sUAS

Scope 14 CFR Part 23 Subpart B - FlightMethod The framework for flight test certification was developed through

the following methods: A review of flight test requirements for commuter aircraft per

AC 23-8C (focusing on Part 23, Subpart B), light sport aircraft per ASTM F37 standards, and sUAS per ASTM F38 standards and Draft AC 20-XX-XX

Combining expertise in the areas of flight testing, aircraft certification, and sUAS design, integration, and flight operations to collaboratively develop recommendations for fixed-wing sUAS flight test certification

www. ASSUREuas.org



www. ASSUREuas.org

Comprehensive Flight Test Framework Outcome• More comprehensive evaluation, drawing upon 14 CFR Part 23,

ASTM F37 Light Sport Aircraft Standard, and F38 ASTM• Follows the organizational structure of 14 CFR Part 23• Requirements are adapted specifically for sUAS• Specific criterion for some requirements still need to be determined

• High speed testing• Dynamic stability• Sense and avoid system tests• Etc.


www. ASSUREuas.org

Comparison of Flight Test Requirements

sUAS• ASTM F38• Draft AC-XX-XX, Appendix A

Commuter Aircraft• 14 CFR Part 23, Subpart B

Light Sport Aircraft• ASTM F37


www. ASSUREuas.org



www. ASSUREuas.org

Comparison of Flight Test Requirements - SummaryFew parallels between F38 and F37, Part 23F38 standards do not cover many of the “typical” flight test

certification requirementsNoticeable gaps in the F38 standards exist within performance,

controllability and maneuverability, stability, trim, spinning, and ground handling

Part 23 does not address key aspects of UAS such as flight test requirements for ground control stations, command and control, lost link, fly away protection, detect & avoid


www. ASSUREuas.org


In general, Part 23 requirements denoted as being applicable to sUAS per Draft AC-XX-XX were adapted for sUAS and incorporated into the comprehensive framework

Some topics require further discussion:• High speed flight• Dynamic stability• Etc.


www. ASSUREuas.org

Conclusions• Comprehensive flight test framework is probably too rigorous• Needs UAS specific flight test requirements developed (ground

control stations, command and control, lost link, fly away protection, detect & avoid)

• Recommend following Part 23 and LSA F37 organizational structure

• Understand the “why” behind manned aircraft requirements to translate into unmanned requirements

• Importance of scalable flight test requirements (UAS size/weight, CONOPs, safety systems onboard)

• New standards needed for certification flight testing for as well as best practices and safety guidelines for flight testing


www. ASSUREuas.org

Future Work Recommendations

Recommendations / Future Work

• Explore additional aspects of flight test that are unique to UAS and not fully addressed in the comprehensive flight test framework

• Flight test requirements and practices for multi-rotors

• Guide sUAS through the certification process, to include flight testing, in collaboration with OEMs; provide recommendations for standards revisions

www. ASSUREuas.org

A1 Certification Test Case to Validate sUAS Industry

Consensus

Questions?

www. ASSUREuas.org

Introduction to ASSURE

Dallas BrooksDirector, Raspet Flight Research Laboratory

Mississippi State University

www. ASSUREuas.org

What is ASSURE? Long title: The Alliance for System Safety of UAS Through

Research Excellence - The Federal Aviation Administration’s Center of Excellence for Unmanned Aerial Systems

Short title: The FAA’s Drone Research Center 22 Schools, 107 companies – big team for a big job!

www. ASSUREuas.org

What is a Center of Excellence? COEs are “entities with substantive ties to universities which

advance the state of transportation knowledge within a particular aviation area.”

FAA William J. Hughes Tech Center manages COEs COE’s get two funding vehicles

Grants (mandatory 1-to-1 cost share) IDIQ Contracts (cost share negotiable)

Congress added $5 million to the UAS COE in FY15 & FY16; expect similar amounts on yearly basis

www. ASSUREuas.org

ASSURE University Team

www. ASSUREuas.org

External Advisory Board

www. ASSUREuas.org

ASSURE Executive Board

www. ASSUREuas.org

FAA Funded ASSURE Research (1/3)• A1: Validate small UAS (sUAS) ASTM standards –

Kansas State• A2: Develop detect and avoid (DAA) to enable

sUAS beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operations under specific operational limitations –UND/NMSU

• A3: Air to air collision – Wichita State/OSU• A4: Air to ground collision – Alabama

Huntsville/MSU

www. ASSUREuas.org

FAA Funded ASSURE Research• A5: sUAS Maintenance Certification – KSU/ERAU• A6: Surveillance criticality for DAA• A7: Human factors - Drexel

• Which functions should – or shouldn’t – be automated in UAS control? What are the minimum design standards for UAS control stations? - Drexel/OSU

• A8: UAS Noise Study – MS State/WSU

www. ASSUREuas.org

ASSURE Proposed ResearchOver 60 ASSURE UAS research proposals submitted to FAA• Minority outreach – Tuskegee/NM State • Economic impact of UAS rules – ERAU• Airport UAS operations – ERAU• C2 testbed - NCSU• UAS ops in semi-urban areas – UAH

www. ASSUREuas.org

ASSURE Proposed Research• Low Altitude Safety Scenarios: mission specific

“graduation” studies• Incorporates researched and proven UAS

safety/integration into specific scenarios• Managed by Alaska Fairbanks and corporate funded

• Candidate scenarios:• Precision agriculture – MSU• Wildfire response – Alaska Fairbanks• Package delivery – UND• Maritime – MSU and Alaska Fairbanks• Disaster response/news/insurance – TBD• Linear infrastructure – UAF, MSU, KSU, UND• Night operations - NMSU

www. ASSUREuas.org

Questions?ASSUREuas

ASSUREuas

ASSURE UAS

www.ASSUREuas.org

astm f38 meeting schedule may 2, 2016 - auvsi, new orleans ... · may 2, 2016 - auvsi, new orleans...

Documents