Global small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Risk Management and the Law

By: Sarah J. Nilsson, JD, PhD, MASAssistant Professor of Aviation Law, College of AviationEmbry-Riddle Aeronautical University - Prescott

Abstract

Unmanned aircraft are now flying in the airspace over virtually every country on Earth.

Their numbers and uses are growing as this paper is being typed. Hence, in the name

of safety, the need to look deeper into the world of unmanned aircraft risk management.

The paper begins with a brief introduction to unmanned aircraft and their categories in

the United States. As the paper unfolds, it introduces the reader to the jargon of risk

management, hazards, hazard identification, and accident investigations. Further

discussion ensues on risk mitigation and insurance factors. Anti-drone devices are

included in a separate chapter, and finally the paper concludes with a look to the future

concerns regarding unmanned aircraft and risk management.

Keywords: Unmanned Aerial Systems, Law, Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,

Model Aircraft, Regulations, Risk Management, Insurance, Safety, Hazard Analysis,

Anti-Drone Devices, Safety Management Systems.

1

Global small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Risk Management and the Law

Introduction

Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) refer to unmanned aircraft (UA) and the

associated equipment required to operate them. They can be as large as a Global Hawk

or as small as a minion toy, and yet safely perform a wide range of functions. Drones,

remotely operated aircraft (ROA), unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), remotely piloted

aircraft (RPA), or remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) are a few of the terms used

to describe the same emerging technology. In the United States, the preferred term for

the unmanned aircraft is UA, whereas the term for the entire system, including

associated equipment, is unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) (Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), 2016a).

In the United States there are three categories of users: (1) public or

governmental operators; (2) commercial or civil or non-governmental operators; and (3)

hobby or recreational users, also known as model aircraft operators (FAA, 2016a).

These shall be described in more detail below.

Public or governmental UAS operators include among others: (1) Department of

Defense (DoD); (2) Department of Homeland Security (DHS); (3) Department of Justice

(DoJ); (4) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); (5) National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA); (6) National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA); (7) State and local agencies, fire and law enforcement; and (8) Qualifying

universities (FAA, 2016b).

Commercial or civil or non-governmental UAS operators include those

2

businesses that have applied for and received Section 333 Exemptions per the FAA

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

as well as those operators that now utilize the Remote PIC with small UAS rating, under

14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 107 since August 29, 2016. Commercial

operations encompass those entities that use UAS in the furtherance of business, or for

compensation or hire, and include among others: mapping; surveying; photography;

videography; filming; closed-set filming; demonstrations; training; measuring;

monitoring; and inspections. Industries using UAS include among others: construction;

architectural; engineering; insurance; security; real estate; resort; golf course; cemetery;

entertainment; sports; utility; energy; transportation; mining; telecommunications;

agriculture; infrastructure; emergency agencies; humanitarian relief; research;

education; and many others, too many to list (FAA, 2016c).

Hobby or recreational operations are also known as model aircraft operations. By

FAA definition, a model aircraft: (1) is capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; (2)

weighs no more than 55 pounds [unless otherwise certified through an operational

safety program administered by a community-based organization (CBO)]; (3) is flown

within visual line-of-sight (VLOS) of the person operating the aircraft; (4) is flown strictly

for hobby or recreational purposes; (5) is flown in accordance with CBO guidelines; and

(6) does not interfere with, and gives way to, any manned aircraft (FAA, 2016d).

In the United States, the FAA regulates the operation of UAS flights in non-

restricted airspace. In the FAA Act of 1958, Congress gave the FAA control over the

safe and efficient use of national airspace. In the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of

2012, Congress then instructed the FAA to integrate UAS in the national airspace, and

3

14 CFR Part 107 was created to regulate commercial operations (FAA, 2016a).

Military aircraft operating in restricted airspace are exempt from this regulation

under Title 10 of the United States Code (USC), which defines the roles of the Armed

Forces (FAA, 2016b).

So, now that you are familiar with UAS and their operators, why is there a need

for UAS risk management? The Teal Group, an aerospace and defense analyst, in a

2014 market study, estimated that the UAS industry would be worth $93 billion by 2024

(Teal Group, 2016). Privacy and safety are the main concerns, and the laws must

address these concerns.

Across the pond, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) also believes

unmanned aircraft should be integrated into the existing aviation system in a safe and

proportionate manner. EASA has published a Concept of Operations for Drones (EASA,

2015), a risk-based approach to regulation of unmanned aircraft. The safety risks

considered must take into account: (1) midair collision with manned aircraft; (2) harm to

people; and (3) damage to property in particular critical and sensitive infrastructure.

In the United States, the FAA Micro UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)

Recommendations were issued in a final report on April 1, 2016 (FAA, 2016e). The

stated objective of the ARC was “to consider recommendations for a performance-

based standard that would allow for micro UAS to be operated over people who are not

directly participating in the operation of the UAS or under a covered structure,” which

would ultimately contribute to an enforceable rule imposed by the FAA (FAA, 2016e, p.

1).

4

Commercial 14 CFR Part 107

Under the new small UAS rule, 14 CFR Part 107, that went into effect August 29,

2016, commercial operators should have a more efficient way to obtain permission to

function within the National Airspace System (NAS) in the furtherance of business, as

opposed to the prior Section 333 Exemption method of operations. This small rule

pertains to UAS weighing less than 55 pounds. It is anticipated that larger UAS shall still

operate under Section 333 Exemptions (FAA, 2016f).

Advisory Circular (AC) 107-2

To enable operators to better understand the intricacies of 14 CFR Part 107, the

FAA published an Advisory Circular (AC) 107-2 to help clarify the regulations. It should

be read in conjunction with the applicable regulations (FAA, 2016g).

Hobby AC 91.57A

Hobby or recreational users of UAS are still required to operate under the

guidance of Advisory Circular (AC) 91.57A (FAA, 2016h).

UAS Risk Management

Before delving into the world of risk management, here is a brief look at some of

its unique language and definitions (Drone Industry Insights, 2016).

Risk is the assessment, expressed in terms of predicted probability and severity, of the

consequence(s) of a hazard taking as reference the worst foreseeable situation.

Hazard is a condition, object or activity with the potential of causing injuries to

personnel, damage to equipment or structures, loss of material, or reduction of ability to

perform a prescribed function.

Consequence is the potential outcome(s) of the hazard.

5

Risk Management is the identification, analysis, and elimination, and/or mitigation to an

acceptable level of risks that threaten the capabilities of an organization. It aims at a

balanced allocation of resources to address all risks and viable risk control and

mitigation. It uses a data-driven approach to safety resources allocation, thus making it

defensible and easier to explain.

Cost-Benefit Analysis includes direct and indirect costs.

Direct Costs are the obvious costs, which are easily determined. The high costs of

exposure to hazards can be reduced by insurance coverage. Purchasing insurance only

transfers monetary risk, but does not address the safety hazard.

Indirect Costs are the uninsured costs. This may amount to more than the direct costs

resulting from exposure to hazards, such as loss of business; damage to reputation;

loss of use of equipment; loss of staff productivity; legal actions and claims; fines and

citations; and insurance deductibles.

Risk Probability is the likelihood that an unsafe event or condition might occur.

Questions for assessing the probability of an occurrence include: (1) Is there a history of

occurrences like the one being assessed, or is the occurrence an isolated event? (2)

What other equipment, or similar type components, might have similar defects? (3)

What number of operating or maintenance personnel must follow the procedure(s) in

question? (4) How frequently is the equipment or procedure under assessment used?

Risk Severity is the possible consequence(s) of an unsafe event or condition, taking as

reference the worst foreseeable situation. We define severity in terms of consequences

for: (1) property; (2) finance; (3) liability; (4) people; (5) environment; (6) image and (7)

public confidence. Questions for assessing the severity of an occurrence include: (1)

6

How many lives (employees, bystanders, public) may be lost? (2) What is the

environmental impact? (3) What is the severity of the property or financial damage? (4)

Are there organizational, management, or regulatory implications that might generate

larger threats to public safety? (5) What are the likely political implications and/or media

interest?

UAS Hazards and Accident Investigation

When it comes to understanding hazards there is a natural tendency to describe

hazards as their consequences. However, stating a hazard as a consequence disguises

the nature of the hazard and interferes with identifying other important consequences.

Well-named hazards allow one to infer the sources or mechanisms of the hazard and

evaluate the loss outcome(s). There are three major types of hazards to UAS: natural,

technical and economic. These shall be described in more detail below.

Natural hazards include adverse weather conditions (icing, snow, heavy rain,

wind, visibility restrictions); severe weather or climatic events (hurricanes, tornadoes,

thunderstorms, lightning, wind shear); geophysical events (earthquakes, volcanoes,

tsunamis, floods, landslides); geographical conditions (adverse terrain, large bodies of

water); and environmental events (wildfires, wildlife activity, insect or pest infestation).

Technical hazards include deficiencies of aircraft, components, systems,

subsystems, and related equipment (high loss of altitude, loss of control, loss of

transmission, collision with manned or other unmanned aircraft, buildings, or power

lines, partial failure or loss of communication link, existence of corrosion, rotor failures);

deficiencies of an organization's facilities, tools, and related equipment (pilot unfamiliar

with equipment, pilot unfamiliar with area, launch and recovery incidents); and

7

deficiencies of facilities, systems, subsystems, and related equipment external to

organization. Technical hazards are the leading cause of UAS mishaps.

Economic hazards include major trends related to growth, recession, cost of

material or equipment, and lack of regulation or over-regulation.

In order to identify hazards, one should consider: (1) design factors, including

equipment and task design; (2) procedures and operating practices, including

documentation and checklists; (3) communications, including means, terminology, and

language; (4) organizational factors, such as company policies for recruitment, training,

remuneration and allocation of resources; (5) work environment factors, such as

ambient noise and vibration, temperature, lighting, protective equipment, and clothing;

(6) regulatory factors, including the applicability and enforceability of regulations,

certification of equipment, personnel, and procedures, and the adequacy of oversight;

(7) defenses including detection and warning systems, and the extent to which the

equipment is resilient against errors and failures; and (8) human performance, including

medical conditions, and physical limitations.

When it comes to hazard identification, sources of hazard identification may be

internal or external. Internal sources include flight data analysis, company voluntary

reporting system, audits, and surveys. External sources include accident reports and

the state mandatory occurrence system.

Efficient and safe operations or the provision of service require a constant

balance between production goals and safety goals. UAS operations may contain

hazards, which may not be cost-effective to address even when operations must

continue.

8

Appropriate documentation management is important for two reasons. First, it is

a formal procedure to translate operational safety data into hazard-related information,

and second and it becomes the 'safety library' for the organization. Standardizing

definitions, understanding, validation, reporting, measurement, and management

facilitates the tracking and analysis of hazards.

In order to discuss the accident/incident investigative process, some definitions

are needed first. An incident is the first of a series of events that could lead to a situation

in which harm or damage occurs. We should investigate an incident because it is a

process that allows management to identify and evaluate the causes of an accident; it

identifies underlying problems to minimize future accidents; and it eliminates repeat

violations or processes. There are four types of incident reporting are: (1) mandatory;

(2) voluntary; (3) confidential; and (4) in-house.

An accident is an unplanned, unwanted, but controllable event that disrupts the

work process and causes injury to people. We should investigate an accident because it

is a process to determine the underlying causes; the causal information is used to

identify and take preventative action; and it is a component of loss prevention.

There are seven steps in the accident/incident investigative process as follows

below. First, develop a plan to investigate immediately. Second, collect information, on

site, secure the scene, investigate the scene, record key information, have accessible

equipment that may be needed, off site, interview key people (explain purpose, use a

fact-finding process, ask open-ended questions, investigate but do not blame), assess

past accident history, and review pertinent records (standard work practices, job safety

analysis, material safety data sheets, employee personnel records, maintenance logs,

9

inspection records). All the above should be investigated because of the prevention of

future or similar losses; contribution to the bottom line; the reduction of human suffering;

and for a continuous improvement process.

Third, analyze all causes. The root cause is the most fundamental and direct

cause of an accident/incident. There may be one or more contributory causes as well.

Accident investigation is ineffective unless all causes are determined and corrected.

Fourth, assess for potential future accidents (assess severity). Class A is major,

a condition or practice that is likely to cause permanent disability, loss of life, body part,

and extensive property damage. Class B is serious, a condition or practice likely to

cause serious injury or illness resulting in temporary disability, or property damage that

is disruptive, but less severe than Class A. Class C is minor, a condition or practice

likely to cause minor, non-disabling, injury or illness or non-disruptive property damage.

Fifth, develop a corrective action plan. Control must directly address each cause

identified. Consider short term controls if permanent controls are not readily available.

More than one control may be needed. Use a Control Hit List as follows: eliminate the

hazard; substitute a less hazardous material; use engineering controls; use personal

protective equipment (PPE); and train the employees.

Sixth, report data and recommendations. Document the facts only! Determine if

corrective action applies to more than one employee, job function, shift, etc. Prioritize

corrective actions based on future accident potential. Submit both short-term and long-

term solutions, if necessary.

Seventh, take corrective action and monitor. Ensure that long-term solutions do

not get lost in the shuffle. Evaluate the effectiveness of implemented controls, like

10

interviewing employees, performing job safety analysis, and amassing accident/incident

experience.

UAS Risk Mitigation and Insurance

The discussion on risk control/mitigation starts with definitions. Mitigation means

measures to address the potential hazard or to reduce the risk probability or severity. To

mitigate is to make milder, less sever, or less harsh. Risk mitigation is akin to risk

control.

Strategies for risk control/mitigation include the following: (1) avoidance where

the operation or activity is cancelled because risks exceed the benefits of continuing the

operation or activity; (2) reduction where the frequency of the operation or activity is

reduced, or action is taken to reduce the magnitude of the consequences of the

accepted risks; and (3) segregation of exposure where action is taken to isolate the

effects of the consequences of the hazard or built-in redundancy to protect against it.

Risk mitigation defenses include technology, training, and regulations. As part of

risk mitigation, determine the following: (1) Do defenses exist that protect against such

risk(s)? (2) Do defenses function as intended? (3) Are the defenses practical for use

under actual working conditions? (4) Is the involved staff aware of the risks and the

defenses in place? (5) Are additional risk mitigation measures required?

Geo-fencing is the ability to build technology into the software to prevent a UAS

from flying in restricted airspace. This should prevent flights near airports, government

facilities, critical infrastructure, and congested areas.

Safety Management System (SMS) is a systematic approach to managing safety,

including the necessary organizational structures, accountabilities, policies and

11

procedures (ICAO). SMS is the formal, top-down business approach to managing safety

risk, which includes a systemic approach to managing safety, including the necessary

organizational structures, accountabilities, policies and procedures (FAA, 2016i).

A UAS operator may use all five types of the following risk management

solutions. First is training, or the understanding of the hazards involved, with pilot

training to include initial and recurrent training; aeronautical knowledge necessary to

operate in the national airspace, meteorological knowledge necessary to understand

UAS performance, aerodynamics knowledge necessary to understand UAS

performance, radio communication with Air Traffic Control, operating manual from

manufacturer to include normal and emergency operations, and checklists, and after-

sales support from the manufacturer.

Second is safety management, or the adoption of smart technology that includes

geo-fencing, electronic logbooks, and real-time data recorders (black boxes) and the

requirement for commercial operators to maintain some level of third-party liability

insurance. SMS documents are an important tool for risk mitigation, promoting a strong

safety culture within the organization. Safety documents should include pre-flight

checklists, logbooks, and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). An SOP should

contain among other items: pre-flight and post-flight checks to include flight planning

and decision making, notices to airmen (NOTAMs), airspace, site survey, launch and

recovery planning, airworthiness, crew briefing and debriefing, data collection and

storage, ensuring the airworthiness of the UAS, weather and environmental issues to

include obstacles, other manned or unmanned traffic in the area, and safety zones

(maintaining a safe distance from the UAS), and interaction between operator and

12

observer.

Third is maintenance. There is no standard or widely accepted practice that has

been developed as yet in this nascent industry. There are no mandated periodic

inspections by approved facilities that have been instituted as yet. The responsibility

falls on the owner or operator of the UAS to ensure the equipment is inspected prior to

each flight and is in suitable condition for safe operation. UAS operators should

maintain up-to-date maintenance logs to include regular system maintenance and

recurring maintenance, test flights, and unscheduled maintenance events. UAS

operators should follow the manufacturers checklists and perform both preventative

maintenance at regular intervals as well as conditional maintenance by servicing or

replacing parts as necessary. Airworthiness inspections should be routine both pre and

post flight.

Insurance is an integral part of risk management. Insurance is there to provide

financial compensation when the safety management system has failed to prevent an

accident or a loss has been suffered due to an unforeseen event. UAS insurers are

seeing a dramatic increase in inquiries for commercial UAS operations. Whereas many

customers have been manufacturing military-grade drones for decades, the proliferation

of the small commercial UAS has presented a unique set of challenges, compounded

by the lack of available industry data. Manufacturers are unlikely to acknowledge how

many units crashed during test flights. Furthermore, most models have not existed long

enough for insurers to acquire an understanding of the particular features that could

influence the likelihood of an accident or system failure. Additionally, the wide range of

UAS pilot experiences are a problem. Some have strong commercial and military

13

aviation backgrounds, whereas most others are new to the UAS industry, and do not!

UAS Insurers assess the likelihood of an accident involving people, as that is where the

possibility of expensive litigation and indemnity payments exists. Insurers routinely

mandate higher safety standards than those set by the FAA. Lack of FAA approval in

the United States is not a barrier to obtaining insurance. What is critical is the

professionalism of the UAS operation, defined by their use of the risk mitigation

solutions mentioned in this paper.

The insurability of a UAS operation depends on the following: (1) Choice of

platform as many different types of units that differ based upon size, weight, level of

autonomy, and ease of use; (2) Experience of the operator, as the operator is

particularly critical with rotor wing UAS that require precision flying and there is no

substitute for training and experience; (3) Background of the operator as a seasoned

helicopter pilot or established aircraft operating company will look at UAS operations

through a different lens than most new-to-aviation UAS operators and thus, insurers will

look more favorably upon this experience and background; (4) Intended use as certain

functions are more hazardous than others, e.g. proximity to overhead power cables or

other structures presents a hazard that requires good flying skills; (5) Intended location

as where the UAS is being operated comes down to the risk of injury to third parties or

damage to their property, e.g. a farmer flying her own foam wing UAS over her own land

poses a very different risk to a 25 pound octocopter operating over the heads of 3,500

spectators at a concert; and (6) Risk management solutions in place as the more formal

the risk management solutions, the more favorably insurers look at the operation.

A typical UAS insurance policy includes the following: (1) Legal liability and

14

physical damage (also known as the hull) for the owner or operator and (2) Product

liability for the manufacturer. Legal liability insurance should be considered as a

minimum. This covers cost to property repair or injury to persons. Additional coverage

may include personal injury (invasion of privacy); non-owned (if you crash another

person's UAS); medical expenses; premises liability; and war perils such as damage

sustained from a malicious act. Coverage is available against physical damage to the

UAS itself. This covers the cost to repair equipment, or cover the total loss of the

platform, payload, or ground equipment. Product liability is available for the

manufacturer or service provider, e.g. training facility, consultant, dealer, software

designer. This would provide coverage in the event the insured product is considered to

have caused or contributed to a loss but it would not cover claims that fall under a

warranty scenario. The safety policy which includes the ongoing pursuit of an accident-

free workplace, a culture of open reporting of all hazards, support for safety training and

stand downs, conducting regular audits and surveys, and monitoring the community for

best practices.

Medical factors should include the FAA recommendation of the IMSAFE checklist

for assessing crewmembers readiness for flight duty: Illness: physical illness can impair

judgment and situational awareness; Medication: over-the-counter and prescription

drugs may have adverse side effects; Stress: limit's ability to perform and perceive;

Alcohol: under influence, within 12 hours, with 0.04% in blood or breath (14 CFR 91.17);

Fatigue: effects of chronic fatigue can be as dangerous as alcohol or drugs; Eating:

includes proper hydration and nourishment.

Environmental hazards include maintaining a safe distance from persons or

15

property when operating in close proximity to people; use of a spotter when operating in

close proximity to other aircraft (manned or unmanned) or vehicles; and use of geo-

fencing; use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as safety vests, safety

glasses, gloves, closed-toed shoes/boots, helmets/ hard hats, and long-sleeved shirts

and pants.

Privacy issues include the use of UAS in a responsible and ethical manner; the

need to gain the person's consent to being filmed; and the prohibition to publish any

images or material captured without the person or property owner's consent.

Hobbyists UAS insurance options include the homeowners policy, and the

Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) for $50 per year membership which includes

$2.5 million coverage.

Commercial UAS insurance options include physical damage (hull) which ranges

from $1,500 to $150,000 with payload that is 90% of the total value whereas UAS itself

is only 10%; liability of third parties with policy limits from $1 million on up where the

customers determine liability limits; war and allied perils (hijacking and malicious

damage); and personal injury to include invasion of privacy.

Preventing injury to UAS operators and observers includes sunburn; dehydration

(hot temps, high winds, humidity, diuretic drinks); heatstroke; contact with hazardous

materials (liquid fuel, batteries); contact with moving parts of UAS (crushing or slicing

extremities in the path of servo actuated surfaces, lacerations or severed digits from

rotors); and tripping hazards (from wires, equipment, etc. so cordon off or mark visibly).

Safety zones should be established for launch and recovery that are clearly marked with

cones, placards, nets, or paint to reduce the risk to crewmembers and bystanders.

16

UAS operations have six distinct phases, all presenting their own unique sets of

hazards: (1) defining mission objectives and needs; (2) planning and ground operations;

(3) launch; (4) climb, transition, and mission delay; (5) recovery; and (6) post mission

ground operations.

Defining mission objectives and needs starts with a discussion with the person

hiring your services and ends with a well-written contract detailing job description and

compensation. Planning and ground operations involves the set up and servicing of

equipment; interactions with crew; site survey from the ground or using Google Earth;

determination of weather; checking of NOTAMS (notices to airmen); and the

identification of environmental hazards. Launch includes the potential for loss of UAS

control; improper level off and exceeding aircraft performance. Climb, transition, and

mission delay covers the area under aircraft hazardous while performing mission;

enroute navigation; overflight of people, adjacent property, buildings, water, trees,

power lines, high terrain; energy starvation (due to lack of situational awareness and

narrow focus of attention); planning time, duration, complexity and scale of operation;

crew coordination; and reliance on automation. Recovery covers a change in conditions

since launch. Post mission ground operations involve much of the same as during

planning and launch phases.

Professionalism starts with a code of ethics (respect of people, property, rules,

rights of others, etc.); excellence (highest quality of work, strive to constantly improve);

responsibility (you are the final authority for the operation, 14 CFR 107.19 and 14 CFR

91.3, and should operate within your limits, plan for contingencies, and maintain

integrity); a culture of safety (ALWAYS! and maintain and improve the organization's

17

safety policy); support (keep learning, and stay abreast of changes in the field, treating

this as any other profession); training of all operators, both initial and recurrent; use of

the checklists, always, to avoid complacency; and use of effective communication

between crew, crew and bystanders, crew and air traffic control when necessary.

Anti-Drone Devices

In this section you will discover a number of different ways that people on this

planet have devised to bring down 'rogue' drones. Your journey will begin in the UK with

Blighter Anti-UAV Defence System (AUDS). Blighter AUDS is a counter drone system

that is designed to disrupt and neutralize UAVs, RPAS or UAS engaged in hostile

airborne surveillance and potentially malicious activity. The Blighter AUDS system

combines electronic-scanning radar target detection, electro-optical (EO)

tracking/classification and directional radio frequency (RF) inhibition capability. Blighter

AUDS is a smart-sensor and effector package capable of remotely detecting small

UAVs and then tracking and classifying them before providing the option to disrupt their

activity. The system may be used in remote or urban areas to prevent UAVs being used

for terrorist attacks, espionage or other malicious activities against sites with critical

infrastructure (Blighter, 2016).

Still in the UK, let us next take a look at SkyWall. The SkyWall concept is simple.

They physically deliver a counter-measure up to the target. SkyWall captures a drone in

a net and lands it safely with a parachute (SkyWall, 2016).

Next, over to Germany where German defense contractor Rheinmetall Defense

Electronics recently unveiled a new sea-based anti-drone laser system. The system

features not one but four high-energy lasers (HEL) mounted on turret, making it look like

18

some kind of laser gatling gun. The principles behind the laser gatling are not exactly

the same as a regular, bullet-spitting gatling gun. The four 20 kilowatt HELs are

designed to be fired simultaneously, in a technique known as superimposition. All four

fire at a target at once, and Rheinmetall's technology combines them into a single

powerful 80 kilowatt beam. According to the company, by using superimposition there is

no limit to the amount of energy that can be focused on a target - just add more lasers

(Rheinmetall, 2016).

Still in Germany, Airbus Defence and Space has developed a Counter-UAV

System, which detects illicit intrusions of UAVs over critical areas at long ranges and

offers electronic countermeasures minimizing the risk of collateral damage. The system

offers very high effectiveness by combining sensor data from different sources with the

latest data fusion, signal analysis and jamming technologies. It uses operational radars,

infrared cameras and direction finders from Airbus Defence and Space’s portfolio to

identify the drone and assess its threat potential at ranges between 5 and 10

Kilometers. Based on an extensive threat library and real time analysis of control signals

a jammer then interrupts the link between drone and pilot and/or its navigation.

Furthermore, the direction finder tracks the position of the pilot who subsequently can

be arrested. Due to the Smart Responsive Jamming Technology developed by Airbus

Defence and Space, the jamming signals are blocking only the relevant frequencies

used to operate the drone while other frequencies in the vicinity remain operational.

Since the jamming technology contains versatile receiving and transmitting capabilities,

more sophisticated measures like remote control classification and GPS spoofing can

be utilized as well. This allows effective and specific jamming and also a controlled

19

takeover of the UAV (Airbus Defence and Space, 2016).

Another company in Germany, Cyborg Unplug sniffs the air for wireless

signatures from devices you have selected to detect, sending you an email alert if it

does. It can also optionally and automatically disconnect them (outside US only) from

whatever network device they are connected to by sending specially crafted wireless

deauthentication packets. This stops them from streaming video, audio and other data

to the Internet (or the room next door). Detected wireless devices currently include:

wearable 'spy' cameras and microphones, Google Glass and Dropcam, small

drones/copters and a variety of popular spy devices disguised as familiar objects

(Cyborg Unplug, 2016).

Off to Japan where the Tokyo Drone Police now catch rogue drones with nets. Its

purpose is to stop suspicious-looking drones that fly into restricted airspace near

government buildings. The new line of defense comes after a drone with minute traces

of radiation landed on the roof of the prime minister's office in April 2015 (Tokyo Drone

Police, 2015).

Next off to the Netherlands where Dutch Police are training eagles to bring down

rogue drones. While many countries are resorting to technology, the authorities in the

Netherlands have partnered with Guard from Above, a Hague-based security team that

is training eagles to bring down drones being flown in restricted areas. The company

believes that the birds of prey that catch victims in mid-air and hold on to them with their

strong talons will easily be able to grab the drones and bring them down safely. This is

important because it eliminates the risk of a disabled drone hurtling down and harming

people on the ground. This may sound dangerous given the quadcopter's rapidly

20

moving propellers. However, bird experts are not concerned. They maintain that the

bird's keen eyesight enables it to attack the drones precisely in the mid portion of the

back, which means they are in no danger from the rotors that lie on each side. The

National Audubon Society’s Christmas Bird Count, which tracks US bird populations,

has observed wild birds attacking drones without getting injured (Dutch Police, 2016).

Flying now to the USA where Battelle’s DroneDefender™ system utilizes a non-

kinetic solution to defend airspace up to 400m against UAS, such as quadcopters and

hexacopters, without compromising safety or risking collateral damage. Note that this

device has not been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal Communications

Commission. This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or

leased in the United States, other than to the United States government and its

agencies, until authorization is obtained. Under current law, the DroneDefender may be

used in the United States only by employees of the Federal government and its

agencies, and use by others may be illegal. It has been successfully tested in Federal

government-conducted field trials (Battelle, 2016).

Boeing's Compact Laser Weapons System tracks and disables UAVs. Boeing's

system is small enough to fit inside four suitcase-sized containers and can be set up in

the field by just a pair of technicians. The tradeoff is that Boeing's 2-kilowatt compact

system is relatively underpowered compared to truck- and ship-mounted systems which

can be 30-kilowatts and up. But that does not mean it cannot absolutely toast a drone.

The laser can take the 220 volts of power it needs from a generator or mobile battery

pack and is controlled with nothing more than a laptop and an Xbox 360 controller, and

the system will take over to track and fire on a drone itself once it is in range. With its

21

low cost to fire (laser beams are virtually free compared to traditional ammunition)

and low need for maintenance (there are hardly any moving parts), a laser like this

would be great for taking down spy drones out in the field (Boeing, 2016).

Based in the USA and Australia is DroneShield. DroneShield helps one’s security

force identify unauthorized drones using real-time alerts and digital evidence collection.

An enterprise-grade sensor network with their patent-pending acoustic detection

technology can sense drones that are invisible to radar or that lack radio-frequency

links. Their sensors recognize unique sound properties of common UAS types. They

listen to surrounding activity and take a sound sample when they sense drone activity

nearby. DroneShield compares the sample to their database of acoustic signatures. If it

finds a match, the system issues an alert and records identifying information about the

aircraft. Their extensive database makes it possible for DroneShield to distinguish UASs

from everyday sources of noise.  This allows them to detect drones with high accuracy,

delivering low false-alarm rates. Instant alerts are delivered independently through a

variety of methods, including SMS, email, or existing video or incident management

systems. DroneShield easily integrates into one’s established security system. Their

detection products also include a browser-based visual interface, giving people live

visibility to surrounding acoustic activity (DroneShield, 2016).

US Army Cyber Institute builds anti drone technology for only $150. It uses an

antenna, Wi-Fi radio, a cheap Raspberry Pi computer, and a known weakness in the

Parrot quadcopter to tell the drone to power off and sending it crashing to the ground.

The design could presumably be tuned to take down other drone brands as well

(Popular Science, 2016b).

22

Flying off to Spain next to observe their drone surveillance radar. DeTect, Inc.

specializes in applied, intelligent radar and related remote sensing technologies and

systems for aviation safety, security and surveillance, drone defense, environmental

protection, and renewable energy with over 280 radar systems installed and operating

to date worldwide. In 2016, DeTect expanded its drone surveillance capabilities with the

launch of its DroneWatcher system that includes an Android application, DroneWatcher

APP, which makes a smartphone or tablet into a short-range drone detector.

DroneWatcher also includes an advanced radiofrequency (RF) sensor, DroneWatcher

RF, for longer-range detection, tracking, identification and interdiction of drones and

small UAVs. Combined, the HARRIER Drone Surveillance Radar and DroneWatcher

APP and RF provide the highest level of multi-layer comprehensive, multi-layer drone

defense available (DeTect, Inc., 2016).

Off now to Italy to look at Selex Es Falcon Shield. Falcon Shield can provide

users with a rapidly deployable, scalable and modular system to detect, disrupt, deny

and defeat the potential UAV threat. Falcon Shield provides users with a multi-spectral

sensing capability and, uniquely through the integration of an electronic attack

capability, a multi-layered threat response. Falcon Shield is derived from Selex ES’s

heritage associated with the provision of short-range defense solutions against a variety

of airborne threats. Falcon Shield exploits Selex ES’s high-performance, passive

Electronic Surveillance and Electro-Optical sensors, combined with scenario-specific

radar to provide a fully integrated threat detection, identification and tracking capability

that is able to operate in environments ranging from wide area through to high-clutter,

‘urban canyons’ (Selex Es, 2016).

23

And off next to South Korea where researchers are knocking drones out of the

sky with sound. The vulnerability in some drones comes from a natural property of all

objects - resonance. Take a wine glass for example. If a sound is created that matches

the natural resonant frequency of the glass, the resulting effects could cause it to

shatter. The same principle applies to components inside drones. Researchers at the

Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) in Daejon, South Korea,

analyzed the effects of resonance on a crucial component of a drone, its gyroscope

(Popular Science, 2016a).

And in France, ECA Group, specialized in robotics, has developed innovative on-

board technology for its IT180 drone. This technology can locate malicious drone

operators in under a minute (ECA Group, 2016).

Here is a look at Maldrone - the world's first drone virus. Security expert Rahul

Sasi has discovered and exploited a backdoor in Parrot AR Drones that allows him to

remotely hijack the UAV with the malware Maldrone (ZD Net, 2016).

Pwnie Express provides full threat detection of every wireless and wired device in

and around your workplace. They detect rogue, misconfigured, and unauthorized

devices across wired and wireless spectrums. By automating wireless and wired device

detection, their solutions continuously detect the devices on or around your network that

are open pathways for attackers (Pwnie Express, 2016).

The Future of UAS

The future holds UAS deliveries by Amazon Prime Air and Dominoes Pizza, to

name a few. This will bring with it a whole new concept of teamwork to which manned

pilot crews have long been indoctrinated. Terms like crew resource management and

24

aeronautical decision making are among these concepts.

Crew Resource Management (CRM) is a set of training procedures for use in

environments where human error can have devastating effects. Used primarily for

improving air safety, CRM focuses on interpersonal communication, leadership, and

decision making in the cockpit. This definition needs to be improved to include

unmanned aircraft crew (FAA, 2016j).

In UAS operations there are typically at least two crewmembers: First, the UAS

operator who is responsible for the safe application of the aircraft, aware of all

regulations affecting or governing the use of UAS, has an in-depth understanding of

systems performance and limitations, aerodynamics, and how the UAS should perform

in both normal and abnormal situations, with knowledge of weather, airspace and other

environmental factors, the ability to communicate with other aircraft, crew members and

air traffic control, and finally familiar with collision avoidance techniques. Second, the

visual observer who is responsible for spotting obstacles, terrain, and aircraft that pose

potential hazards, has a basic understanding of systems performance and limitations,

aerodynamics, with knowledge of weather, airspace and other environmental factors,

aware of all regulations affecting or governing the use of UAS, and has the ability to

communicate with other aircraft, crew members and air traffic control.

Aeronautical Decision Making (ADM): a systematic approach to the mental

process used by all involved in aviation to consistently determine the best course of

action for a given set of circumstances. In this regard, operators of unmanned aircraft

must adapt the knowledge already familiar to manned aircraft pilots (FAA, 2016k).

Human Error means something has been done that was "not intended by the

25

actor; not desired by a set of rules or an external observer; or that led the task or

system outside its acceptable limits"; a deviation from intention, expectation or

desirability. There are four main kinds: (1) Skill-based errors; (2) Rule-based errors; (3)

Knowledge-based errors; and (4) Violations.

Skill-based errors occur when the action made is not what was intended, and

include execution errors or slips (wrong button); lapses (cannot recall); negative

transfer/reversion (from other systems); indicated lack of proficiency; and limits in

human cognition that can be exasperated by factors external to the situation. Formal

training and good procedures, guidelines, and aids can counter skill-based errors.

Rule-based errors include mistakes; planning errors or misinterpretation of a

procedure or rule; the type of decision error where actions match intentions but do not

achieve their intended outcome due to incorrect application of a rule or inadequacy of

the plan; and are caused by lack of training or understanding in the required operation.

A deep understanding of the operating rules, formal procedures, and planning aids can

mitigate rule-based errors.

Knowledge-based errors are planning errors due to lack of knowledge or poor

perception; mistakes; the type of decision error in which actions are intended but do not

achieve the intended outcome due to knowledge deficits; and indicate lack of training or

understanding of systems; Extensive training or study of the system can mitigate

knowledge-based errors.

Violations are a willful effort to break the rule/procedure due to human nature or

unsafe attitudes and there are two kinds, namely, routine violations and exceptional

violations. Routine violations are a habitual action on the part of the operator and are

26

tolerated by the organization. Exceptional violations are an isolated departure from

authority, neither typical of the individual nor condoned by management.

Human Factors is a multidisciplinary approach to examining system design,

training, experience, and individual motivation, with the objective of positively

influencing human performance. It is based upon the premise that no person can

perform perfectly all the time and yet human crews must be used because every

operation will present unique circumstances that will require adaptation and uneven

application of skills and knowledge.

Human Factor Risks include lack of experience; an adverse or diminished

physical or mental state; and limitations to the operator's ability to perceive and perform.

Experience is one's ability to make good decisions while operating one's UAS and is

directly tied to one's experience. Experience can be measured in flight hours (from time

of power on/engine start to power down/engine shutdown). It must not be confused with

flight cycle (system setup, launch, and operational flight in excess of 10 minutes,

recovery and system stowing). All people have different abilities and limitations, some of

which are inherent whereas others are learned over time. Experience can be defined in

three phases: (1) inexperienced (rigid adherence to taught rules and no exercise of

discretionary judgment); (2) proficient (holistic view of situation and employs maxims for

guidance); and (3) expert (transcends reliance on rules and uses analytical approaches

in new situations or in case of problems).

An inexperienced UAS pilot is defined as one who has little to no flight time (25

or less logged flights); who tends to adhere to all rules learned or formal plans made.

Working outside of rules or plans makes the inexperienced operator uncomfortable and

27

overwhelmed or limits their ability to exercise discretion. They have not completed

formal (initial) qualification training and may be blissfully unaware of rules, regulations,

and safety practices. They may be self-taught and have bad habits. It is vital that they

receive formal training in how to plan an operation as well as understand the rules.

A proficient UAS pilot is defined as one who has built up between 50 and 100

flight hours and has started to see the whole picture. He or she begins to prioritize and

sequence tasks in order to achieve a goal or objective and can complete multiple tasks

nearly simultaneously. He or she is able to synthesize information from multiple sources

that is obtained throughout the mission.

An expert UAS pilot is defined as one having years of experience with hundreds

if not thousands of flight hours. They are so comfortable with operational skills that they

reduce their reliance on Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) or guidelines, and

instead make judgments based on their understanding and intuition. Experts are aware

of the possibilities (good and bad) that the technology or situation presents and will use

analytical tools to solve complex problems.

It is important to the operation that crew experience be managed appropriately.

Experts can be great instructors to inexperienced, but two experts together may pose a

higher risk to the operation.

Currency is the amount of time between flights. Currency requirements are the

maximum amount of time between flights. The FAA recommends these currency

requirements. Insurers may recommend tighter currency requirements. Currency

requirements should be closely tied to experience and operations. Experienced

operators may not forget the basics even after a long period of time has elapsed

28

whereas novices may forget after just a few weeks. Operations that are frequently

practiced tend to lead to greater proficiency in those operations but not necessarily

other differing types.

Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS-B) is a precise satellite-

based surveillance system. ADS-B Out uses GPS technology to determine an aircraft's

location, airspeed and other data, and broadcasts that information to a network of

ground stations, which relays the data to air traffic control displays and to nearby aircraft

equipped to receive the data via ADS-B In. Operators of aircraft equipped with ADS-B In

can receive weather and traffic position information delivered directly to the cockpit. The

future includes ADS-B in unmanned aircraft (FAA, 2016l).

Unmanned Aircraft Traffic Management (NASA): Many beneficial civilian

applications of UAS have been proposed, from goods delivery and infrastructure

surveillance, to search and rescue, and agricultural monitoring. Currently, there is no

established infrastructure to enable and safely manage the widespread use of low-

altitude airspace and UAS operations, regardless of the type of UAS. A UAS traffic

management (UTM) system for low-altitude airspace may be needed, perhaps

leveraging concepts from the system of roads, lanes, stop signs, rules and lights that

govern vehicles on the ground today, whether the vehicles are driven by humans or are

automated (NASA, 2016).

Conclusion

While this paper has introduced you to the various facets of UAS risk

management, the future is likely to differ with the emergence of rules for beyond visual

line of sight (BVLOS) as sense and avoid technology develops further. It will be an

29

interesting world when deliveries are made by UAS, and Ehang one-person unmanned

taxicabs fill the skies.

30

References

Airbus Defence and Space. (2016). Counter-UAV System. Retrieved from https://airbusdefenceandspace.com/newsroom/news-and-features/counter-uav-system-from-airbus-defence-and-space-protects-large-installations-and-events-from-illicit-intrusion/

Battelle. (2016). DroneDefender™. Retrieved from http://www.battelle.org/our-

work/national-security/tactical-systems/battelle-dronedefender Blighter. (2016). AUDS (Anti-UAV Defence System). Retrieved from

http://www.blighter.com/products/blighter-auds-anti-uav-defence-system.html

Boeing. (2016). Boeing's Compact Laser Weapons System tracks and disables UAVs. Retrieved from http://www.boeing.com/features/2015/08/bds-compact-laser-08-15.page

Cyborg Unplug. (2016). Concept of operations. Retrieved from https://plugunplug.net

DeTect, Inc. (2016). Concept of Operations. Retrieved from http://www.detectinc.com/drone.html

Drone Industry Insights. (2016). UAS Safety Risk Assessment. Retrieved from http://droneii.com/uas-safety-risk-assessment

DroneShield. (2016). Concept of Operations. Retrieved from https://www.droneshield.com

Dutch Police. (2016). Dutch Police are training eagles to bring down rogue drones. Retrieved from http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/1/10884586/drone-vs-eagle-dutch-police

ECA Group. (2016). Malicious drones. Retrieved from http://www.ecagroup.com/en/financial/neutralization-malicious-drones-eca-group-innovating-and-validates-unique-technology

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). (2015). Concept of Operations for Drones. Retrieved from https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/204696_EASA_concept_drone_brochure_web.pdf

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2016a). Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Frequently Asked Questions/Help. Retrieved from http://www.faa.gov/uas/faqs/

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2016b). Resources. Retrieved fromhttp://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/

31

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2016c). Section 333. Retrieved fromhttp://www.faa.gov/uas/beyond_the_basics/section_333/

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2016d). Getting Started. Retrieved fromhttp://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2016e). Micro Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) Recommendations. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=85327

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2016f). Fly for work/business. Retrieved fromhttp://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_work_business/

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2016g). AC 107-2. Retrieved from http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/AC_107-2_AFS-1_Signed.pdf

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2016h). AC 91.57A. Retrieved from http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1028086

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2016i). FAA Order VS 8000.367A. Retrieved from http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/order/faa%20order%208000.367a.pdf

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2016j). Crew Resource Management. Retrieved from http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentid/22879

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2016k). Aeronautical Decision Making. Retrieved from http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/pilot_handbook.pdf

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2016l). ADS-B. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/adsb/

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (2016). UTM. Retrieved from https://utm.arc.nasa.gov

Popular Science. (2016a). Korean researchers knock drones out of the air with sound. Retrieved from http://www.popsci.com/korean-researchers-knock-drones-out-air-sound

Popular Science. (2016b). Soldier downs drone with cyber rifle. Retrieved from

32

http://www.popsci.com/solider-downs-drone-with-cyber-rifle-at-defense-secretarys-feet

Pwnie Express. (2016). Concept of operations. Retrieved from https://www.pwnieexpress.com

Rheinmetall Defense Electronics. (2016). Concept of operation. Retrieved from http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150924/1027457868/germany-laser-gun.html

Selex Es. (2016). Concept of Operations. Retrieved from http://www.us.selex-es.com/-/falconshield

SkyWall. (2016). Concept of operation. Retrieved from http://openworksengineering.com/skywall

Teal Group. (2016). Press Release. Retrieved from http://www.tealgroup.com/index.php/teal-group-news-media/item/press-release-uav-production-will-total-93-billion

Tokyo Drone Police. (2015). Tokyo Drone Police catch rogue drones with nets. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3356746/How-catch-drone-BIGGER-drone-giant-net-Tokyo-police-reveal-bizarre-UAV-catcher.html

ZD Net. (2016). Maldrone malware. Retrieved from http://www.zdnet.com/article/maldrone-malware-which-hijacks-your-personal- drones/

33