in , 2012-03-28 - 2012-03-28. - quteprints.qut.edu.au/49477/1/ttcp_aero_-_clothier_-2012-03...insitu...

This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:

Clothier, Reece A.(2012)Overview of Australian Civil UAS Regulations and Supporting Research.InThe Technical Cooperation Panel meeting AER (aerospace group), Tech-nical Panel 6 "UAV Systems and Operations", 2012-03-28 - 2012-03-28.(Unpublished)

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/49477/

c© Copyright 2012 Please consult the author

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under aCreative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use andthat permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then referto the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe thatthis work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected]

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Clothier,_Reece.html

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/49477/

Overview of Australian Civil UAS Regulations and Supporting Research

Reece Clothier Senior Research Fellow

Australian Research Centre for Aerospace Automation Queensland University of Technology

[email protected]

28 March 2012

Overview of Presentation

�  Australian Civil UAS Context �  Systems, operations and environment �  Civil UAS regulations �  Regulatory review

�  ARCAA UAS Risk Research Program �  Regulatory framework �  Risk modelling �  Safety objectives and social concerns

�  ARCAA Enabling Technology Research Program �  Australian led enabling research in flight termination systems,

Detect and Act, and automated separation management

Copyright © 2012 R. Clothier. All rights reserved.

2

Australian Context – Industry & Systems

Kingfisher II BAE Systems Australia, VIC

ScanEagle Insitu Pacific Ltd, QLD

Flamingo – Silvertone, NSW CyberEye II – Cyber Technology, WA Medium Airship Airship Solutions, NSW

cyberQuad Cyber Technology, WA


3

Aerosonde Mark 4.7 AAI, Aersonde VIC

Kestral Automated Target Detection Software,

Sentient, VIC CM160 Gimbaled

Camera UAV Vision, NSW

Phoenix Jet Aerial Targets Air Affairs Australia, NSW

T2000UAV-L, Mode 3/A Transponder Microair, QLD

i-Flight 650 Flight Vision, NSW

ARCAA Rotor-Wing UAS

ARCAA, QLD


4

AirRobot Australasia, VIC

Australian Context – Industry & Systems

Fire front mapping - WA 2010 – Photo: Channel 10

Insitu Pacific Ltd Marine Mammal Survey - Dugongs and Whale (Inset)


5

Beach litter surveys, CSIRO. Photo: Tricia Watkinson.

Insitu Pacific Ltd- Fisheries protection & law enforcement trials. Photo: Channel 7

Australian Context – Civil Operations

Insitu Pacific Fire and Emergency Services Trials 2009

Automated inspection of power lines. Photo taken from a UAS with automated power line

detection algorithm (ARCAA and CRC-SI)

�  Current applications and demonstrations in: �  Customs/border protection �  Power-pole and communications

tower inspection �  Aerial photography (e.g., real-estate) �  Mine site rehabilitation �  Noxious weed survey �  Maritime poaching and fisheries

enforcement �  Drug crop detection �  Agriculture management �  Search and rescue �  Surf life saving


6

Australian Context – Civil Operations

�  Extremely low population density �  95% of Australia by land area has density < 1 person km2

�  Airspace and Air Traffic Services �  Low aircraft activity away from populated centres and eastern air

routes �  Huge amount of Class G/uncontrolled airspace (99.88% of FIR):

�  SFC to ~8,500ft / FL180 (Radar/Non-radar) �  Class G in the US NAS: SFC to 1,200ft AGL

�  PSR and SSR coverage limited to eastern coast and major populated centres

�  ADS-B mandatory equipage: �  New aircraft from Feb 2014 for operation in airspace Classes A, B, C

and E and above 10,000 feet in Class G; and �  By Feb 2016 for ALL aircraft operating at Melbourne, Sydney,

Brisbane and Perth Airports (Class C). �  ALL existing and new IFR capable aircraft (by 2017 / from 2014) �  Class A operations > FL290


7

Australian Context – Operating Environment


8 PSR, SSR and ADS-B end state coverage 5,000ft AGL PSR, SSR and ADS-B end state coverage 10,000ft AGL PSR, SSR and ADS-B end state coverage FL200 PSR, SSR and ADS-B end state coverage FL300

Coverage pictures compliments of Airservices Australia


9

Australian Context - Civil UAS Regulations

�  CASA was first in the world to define civil regulations for UAS, 2002

�  Operational regulations contained in CASR 1998, Part 101

�  Three operational categories defined �  MICRO ≤ 100g �  100g < SMALL ≤ 150 kg (100 kg rotorcraft) �  LARGE > 150kg (100 kg rotorcraft)

�  Operations approved on a case-by-case basis �  Within an “approved area” or in accordance with conditions associated with

the operator’s OC �  Restrictions depend on safety case, can include:

�  Limited to VLOS, defined area, altitude, not over populous areas

�  Additional requirements on personnel, equipage, communication and planning �  Letter of agreement with Air Service Provider

�  Commercial operations require operator to obtain an OC


10

�  Certificate of Airworthiness required for: �  All large UAS operations �  All small and large UAS operations over “populous areas”

�  No type certification standards have been defined: �  Experimental designation - AC 21-43(0)

�  specific applications and not for commercial reward, subject to operational restrictions.

�  Certification as a restricted category �  No standards or guidance provided – assessed individually


11

Australian Context - Civil UAS Regulations

Regulatory Reform �  Current regulations have greatly benefited civil industry

�  Industry grown to a point where further guidance is needed to permit greater freedom of operations, consistent regulation across sectors and harmonisation to international initiatives

�  “Grey areas” in current regulation

�  April 2009 Australia Aerospace Industry Forum, Certification & Regulation Working Group for UAS was formed �  Made recommendations to CASA on certification framework, training and

licensing, operations in class G airspace, and definition of populous areas [REF 1]

�  The Aviation White Paper (released December 2009 and available on The Department of Infrastructure and Transport Website) stated that the Government will ensure CASA “…enhances oversight of the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)”

�  June 2011 – CASA Project OS 11/20 established to review CASR 101 and ACs

�  Nov 2011 – CASA Standards Consultative Committee Working Group formed to assist with Project OS 11/20


12

Regulatory Reform

�  Revision of Advisory Circulars underway (released for public consultation ~ June 2012) �  Release includes significant input from DGTA, ACPA, DSTO, UAS

industry, academia, other airspace user groups

�  Will include: �  New personnel training and licensing requirements �  New requirements on Operator Certification and area approvals �  Emphasis on safety outcome-based regulation as opposed to

prescriptive codes of requirements

�  CASA Direction - Target system safety approach �  The minimum requirements and guidance material on the

preparation of operational safety cases are being developed �  Acknowledged that some larger UAS operations may be type

certificated in the future – not for some time


13

ARCAA – Supporting Civil UAS Regulatory Reform

Risk-informed regulation of civil UAS


14

ARCAA Risk-Based Regulatory Framework

�  ARCAA, in conjunction with researchers from DSTO and CSIRO proposed a risk-based structuring of civil regulations for UAS [REF 1, 2]

�  Framework was endorsed by Australian industry (AAIF) and by CASA as an appropriate framework for the development of regulatory requirements on civil UAS: �  Technical airworthiness �  UAS operations within non-segregated airspace


15

Risk-Based Framework


16


17

Defined by the degree of harm a UAS could cause to an area over-flown. Note: the type categories are defined independent of the particular area over-flown (orthogonal to the axis describing the operational environment)

UAS Types


18

Defined by the potential for harm given a UAS crashing in the area (characterised by the susceptibility of an area to a crashing UAS: population density, degree of sheltering, hazardous industry etc). Note: the categories of operational environment are defined independent of the particular type of UAS over-flying (orthogonal to the type category axis)

UAS Operational Environment


19

Each cell of the matrix defines a unique operational scenario - the combination of a UAS type and particular operating environment

UAS Operational Scenarios


20

The level of risk is determined for each cell (operational scenario).

Risk Assessment


21

Cells of a similar colour represent a similar level of risk and hence are subject to the same airworthiness requirements.

The spectrum of risk is then ‘mapped’ to a finite and contiguous number of UAS certification categories (r). Illustratively, this is the process of assigning a finite number of colours to the cells.

UAS Certification Categories

Risk-Based Framework


22

Incorporating Airspace Integration


23

Summary �  Framework provides:

�  Transparent and justifiable basis for tailoring requirements on UAS (design, manufacture, maintenance, training and licensing, and operation) across the diversity of systems, account for differences in: levels of risk, public acceptability and technical and performance constraints/limitations

�  Systematic treatment of technical and operational mitigation strategies �  Consistent with ICAO SARPS mandating NAA activities of policy, rulemaking

and oversight be risk based

�  Does not prescribe how regulation is promulgated: �  Prescriptive code of requirements or �  Outcome based safety case

�  Concept endorsed by CASA [REF 3] as the preferred framework for: �  Establishing technical airworthiness requirements �  Generating and evaluating safety cases for UAS operations in non-segregated

airspace and over inhabited areas

�  Research project has been established to substantiate framework �  Recommendations to CASA via AAIF expected by June 2014


24

Risk Modelling �  Key component is QRA of UAS operations in non-segregated

airspace and over inhabited areas


25

�  Primary focus to date has been the modelling of ground risk [REF 4] �  Detailed and high-level ground risk

quantified assessment tools

�  Impact footprint modelling

�  Modelling of aircraft failure modes

�  Establishing system-level safety objectives for UAS

�  Developed QRA Tool for DSTO – high level assessments of ground risk [REF 5]

�  New work to develop a systems theoretic communication risk model for generic UAS operations in Australian non-segregated airspace

Risk-based Classification of UAS Types

�  The specification of the “Columns” of the risk framework

�  Preliminary studies with DSTO into risk-based classification of UAS types [REFS 6, 7]

�  Established funded research project to determine: �  Harm of micro/small

UAS (Dec 12) �  Finalisation of risk-

based type categories(June 13)


26

Classification by Individual Risk

X-‐45C

RQ-‐11A/B Raven

FQM-‐151A Pointer

Brumby, Mk3

Black Widow Wasp II

RQ-‐14A Dragon Eye KillerBee 2

Aerosonde Mk 4 ScanEagle

RQ-‐7A, Shadow 200

RQ-‐2A/B Pioneer

I-‐View 250

Shadow 600

Sky Lark IV

Helios

MQ-‐5C e-‐Hunter

M/RQ-‐1B Predator

Heron 1

MQ-‐12A Sky Warrior

RQ-‐3A DarkStar

Taranis

RQ-‐4B Global Hawk

RQ-‐37A

MQ-‐9B Reaper

Centurion

CL-‐89_Midge

Scarab

Sky-‐X Eagle Eye

Mobius 4

Log10 Impact Energy (J)

Log 1

0 Impact Area (m

2 )

Type category 1 Type category 2 Type category 3 Type category 4 Type category 5

Candidate type categories for fixed-‐wing UAS

Safety Objectives and Public Concern

�  Preliminary work in the quantified specification of high level safety objectives (i.e., the equivalent level of safety objective) [REF 8]

�  Research program established and funded to: �  Review and finalisation of a set of quantified safety objectives for UAS

(Dec 2012)

�  Extensive stakeholder survey to: �  Identify public concerns (June 2014)

�  Quantify public attitude towards risks (June 2014)

�  Develop stakeholder communication strategies (June 2014)

�  Recommendations to be made to CASA via the AAIF


28

Addressing the Technical Challenges…


29

Automated Emergency Landing Systems

Safe landing of aircraft

High altitude continuous mapping.

High level landing site identification

Site selection, dynamic path planning, guidance and control down to final decision point

Low altitude site characterisation, dynamic path planning, guidance and control.

Engine Failure


30

Research – Automated Emergency Landing System Algorithm Developed by

D.L Fitzgerald


31

Automated Midair Collision Avoidance System


32


33

Global Assurance

Local Assurance

4. Automated Separa�on Management System

1.

2.

3.


34

Smart Skies – Flight Demonstrated Technologies


!

35

Smart Skies – ASMS �  Automated separation provision for complex airspace

management scenarios [REF 9]


36

�  Automated control of real flight test aircraft for separation assurance using public data networks and Iridium

�  Real world scenarios �  Up to 50 real & sim AC �  Mix of types and

performance �  Non-coop and active

breakdown scenarios �  Rotorcraft

�  Incorporated PSR and ADS-B surveillance feeds and aircraft-based separation (Detect and Act)

!

Real World Flight Test Results

Complex scenarios: C172 Primary Flight Display showing some of the 49 other aircraft

UAS on UAS Scenarios

UAS on C172 Scenarios

Scenarios using radar data


37

Summary �  Australian civil regulations are progressing rapidly after more

than a decade of stagnation

�  CASA general direction is towards safety target based regulation

�  A large number of technical and social (regulatory and public concern) issues still need to be addressed

�  Integrated program of research has been established by ARCAA �  Risk studies underpinning substantiation of a risk-based

framework for the regulation of UAS operations over inhabited areas and in non-segregated airspace

�  Output are recommendations to the regulator via independent industry group (AAIF or CASA SCC)

�  Ongoing development and flight testing of existing risk mitigation technologies �  Detect and Act �  Automated Flight Emergency Landing System


38

References


39

[1] Recommendations Of the Australian Aerospace Industry Forum Sub-Committee on UAS Certification and Regulation for Routine Access of Small UAS to Class G Airspace (Nov 2010). Download: http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Aerospace/Forum/Documents/AAIF_%20UAS_%20Report.pdf

[2] Clothier, Reece A., Palmer, Jennifer L., Walker, Rodney A., and Fulton, Neale L. (2011) Definition of an airworthiness certification framework for civil unmanned aircraft systems. Safety Science. Vol. 49 (6), July. pp. 871-885. Author version download: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/40466/

[3] “CASA Response to Unmanned Aircraft Systems Sub-committee Report”, Letter from T Farquharson (A/g Director of Aviation Safety, CASA) to AAIF Chair, Mr Ian Honnery (Dated 12 May 2011)

[4] Clothier, Reece A., Walker, Rodney A., Fulton, Neale, & Campbell, Duncan A. (2007) A Casualty Risk Analysis For Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations Over Inhabited Areas. In AIAC12 – Twelfth Australian International Aerospace Congress, 2nd Australasian Unmanned Air Vehicles Conference, 19-22 March, Melbourne. Author version download: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/6822/

[5] Wu, P and Clothier R. ARCAA-URAT-RM-MD-001, UAS Risk Assessment Tool Project: Risk Model Derivation. Technical Report to Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO). Australian Research Centre for Aerospace Automation (ARCAA), Brisbane, Australia. 14 April 2011

[6] Clothier, Reece A., Palmer, Jennifer L., Walker, Rodney A., and Fulton, Neale L. (2010) Definition of airworthiness categories for civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). In Proceedings of The 27th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, Acropolis Conference Centre, Nice, France. Author version download: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/32789/

[7] Clothier, Reece A. (2011) UAS Classification: Key to effective airworthiness and operational regulations. In Royal Aeronautical Society Unmanned Aircraft Systems Specialist Group, UAS Classification Workshop, 24th June 2011, London, UK. (Unpublished). Author version download: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/42054/

[8] Clothier, Reece A. & Walker, Rodney A. (2006) Determination and Evaluation of UAV Safety Objectives. In 21st International Unmanned Air Vehicle Systems Conference, 3rd April - 5th April 2006, Bristol, United Kingdom. Author version download: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/4183/

[9] Clothier, Reece A., Frousheger, D. and Wilson, M. (2012) The Smart Skies Project: ICAS 2012. Submitted for presentation at The 28th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, Brisbane, Australia (to appear).

QUESTIONS

Reece Clothier

Australian Research Centre for Aerospace Automation

[email protected]

www.arcaa.aero


40

41

More Information


42


43

C172 Flight Display

Experiment View

Simple Initial Collision Scenarios