Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:40:47.132Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An operability framework for unmanned aircraft systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

A. Maneschijn ,
T. Jones  and
T. W. von Backström
T. Jones
Affiliation:
Faculty of Engineering, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
T. W. von Backström
Affiliation:
Faculty of Engineering, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the current absence of comprehensive and generic UAS airworthiness regulations, the development of UAS and their introduction into non-segregated airspace pose significant challenges to the UAS industry and regulators. This paper reports on a research study that considered the problem, from an engineering perspective, beyond the limits of the airworthiness of the aircraft and remote control station. The study introduces the concept of UAS operability, which includes the safe and reliable functioning of the UAS as a system, the airworthiness of its airborne sub-systems, and the safe and reliable functioning of its non-airborne sub-systems and functional payloads. The regulatory domain for UAS operability is described and the study establishes a generic and comprehensive UAS operability framework. The framework was validated by populating its elements with engineering criteria that can be used by the UAS engineering domain for the development of engineering specifications and as guidance towards achieving the safe and reliable functioning of UAS.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 115 , Issue 1168 , June 2011 , pp. 361 - 376
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2011 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. ICAO. Convention on International Civil Aviation, 2006, Document 7300/9, International Civil Aviation Organization. Montréal, Canada.Google Scholar
2. EASA. Advance-Notice of Proposed Amendment: Ref A-NPA No 16/2005, 2005, Policy for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Certification, Rulemaking Directorate, European Aviation Safety Agency, Köln, Germany.Google Scholar
3. FAA. Interim Operational Approval Guidance 08-01, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations in the U.S. National Airspace System, 2008, Unmanned Aircraft Program Office (AIR-160), Federal Aviation Administration. Washington, USA.Google Scholar
4. UK CAA. CAP 722 — Guidance for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Operations in UK Airspace, Second Edition, 2004, Directorate of Airspace Policy, UK Civil Aviation Authority. London, UK.Google Scholar
5 Ingham, L.A. Considerations for a Roadmap for the Operation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) in South African Airspace, 2008, PhD thesis, Stellenbosch University, South Africa.Google Scholar
6. Ingham, L.A., Jones, T. and Maneschijn, A. Certification of unmanned aerial vehicles in South African airspace, SAIME R&D J, 2006, Johannesburg, South Africa.Google Scholar
7. Ingham, L.A., Jones, T. And Maneschijn, A. Considerations for UAV design and operation in South African airspace, Aeronaut J, 2006, 110, (1112), London, UK.Google Scholar
8 Ingham, L.A., Jones, T. and Maneschijn, A. Considerations for flight testing of UAVs in South African airspace, Aeronaut J, 2006, 110, (1113), London, UK.Google Scholar
9. Maneschijn, A. A Framework and Criteria for the Operability of Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 2010, PhD thesis, Stellenbosch University, South Africa.Google Scholar
10. Maneschijn, A., Jones, T., von Backström, T.W. and Ingham, L.A. A proposed reference framework for unmanned aerial vehicle and system airworthiness requirements, Aeronaut J, 2007, 111, (1120), London, UK.Google Scholar
11. National (SA) UAS Policy Co-ordination Committee (Airworthiness Sub-committee) and Maneschijn, A. Interim Policy for Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems in South Africa, 2008, SA CARCOM and SA Civil Aviation Authority, Johannesburg, South Africa.Google Scholar
12. ICAO. ICAO Exploratory Meeting on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), 23-24 May 2006, Montréal, Canada, Summary of Discussions, ICAO-UAV WP/2.Google Scholar
13. ICAO. AFI Planning and Implementation Regional Group 16th Meeting — Progress report on unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) work, 2007, Doc APIRG/16-IP/15, 13/11/07, Kigali, Rwanda.Google Scholar
14. ICAO. 17th Meeting of the APANPIRG ATM/AIS/SAR Sub-Group (ATM/AIS/SAR/SG/17), 2007, Doc ATM/AIS/SAR/SG/17-WP/31, 2/7/07, Bangkok, Thailand.Google Scholar
15. Carey, L. 2009/2010 UAS Yearbook — UAS: The Global Perspective. Seventh Edition, June 2009, ICAO UAS Study Group, van Blyenburgh & Co. Paris, France.Google Scholar
16. Maneschijn, A. Developing a Feasible Engineering Policy to Ensure Continued Aviation Safety in the South African Air Force, 2002, MSc (AeroEng) dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand. Johannesburg, South Africa.Google Scholar
17. Joint Airworthiness Committee — UAV System Sub Committee. Design and Airworthiness Requirements for Service Aircraft — UAV Systems, Defence Standard 00-970, Part 9, Issue 4, 27 January 2006, Defence Procurement Agency, Ministry of Defence. Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
18. UsAR Working Group (2004). UAV systems airworthiness requirements (USAR), Version 3.0, 20 January 2005, UAV Flight Test Team Manager, Délégation Générale des Armements (DGA), Istres, France.Google Scholar
19. Canadian Department of National Defence. UAV system airworthiness requirements (USARs) — Canadian review and input, Cited 12 July 2006, http://www.uvscanada.org/documents/USAR_v3.0.pdf.Google Scholar
20. Rehn, T. Swedish Armed Forces’ UAV system vision for operation in non-segregated airspace, Issue 2, Enclosure 1 to HKV, 29 November 2004, Doc Ref 02 810:77056, Swedish Armed Forces Headquarters, Swedish Armed Forces. Sweden.Google Scholar
21. Chief of Staff. Aviation unmanned aerial vehicle flight regulations, Army Regulation 95–23, 14 May 2004, Department of the Army, US Army, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
22. NATO. Ratification of Draft STANAG 4671 on unmanned aerial vehicles systems airworthiness requirements (USAR), 9 May 2007, NATO Joint Capability Group on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (JCGUAV), Doc PFP(NNAG-JCGUAV)D(2007)0002, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
23. JAA/EUROCONTROL. The Joint JAA/EUROCONTROL Initiative on UAVs, 2004, UAV TASK-FORCE Final Report. Joint Aviation Authorities. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
24. Haddon, D.R. and Whittaker, C.J. UK-CAA Policy for Light UAV Systems, 2004, Design & Production Standards Division, Civil Aviation Authority, UK.Google Scholar
25. ICAO. Annex 8 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation: Airworthiness of Aircraft, Ninth Edition, 2001, International Civil Aviation Organization. Montréal, Canada.Google Scholar
26. FAA. Guide to commercial reusable launch vehicle operations and maintenance, Version 1.0, March 2005, Office of Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
27. RTI International Center for Aerospace Technology. Reusable launch vehicles operations and maintenance top-down analysis — Final technical report, December 2002, RTI Report No RTI/ 08087.002/Task 1.5-01F, 20. Florida, United States of America. 2002.Google Scholar
28. Webster’s Online Dictionary. ‘Flight-worthy: An aircraft, missile, or spacecraft is flight-worthy if it is ready and sufficiently sound in all respects to meet and endure the stresses and strains of flight. Source: European Union.’ Cited 11 November 2009, http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/fl/flight-worthy.html.Google Scholar
29. FAA. Federal aviation regulations Title 14: Aeronautics and space, Part 1 — Definitions and abbreviations, 2009, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
30. JAA. Joint Aviation Requirements JAR-1, Definitions and abbreviations, Change 5, 15 July 1996, Joint Aviation Authorities Committee, Joint Aviation Authorities, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
31. EASA. CS-definitions, definitions and abbreviations used in certification specifications for products, Parts and Appliances, ED Decision 2003/11/RM, 5 November 2003, European Aviation Safety Agency, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
32. Ministry of Defence. JSP553, Military airworthiness regulations (2006) Edition 1 Change 5, Cited 3 September 2008, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airworthy.Google Scholar
33. Tatelman, T.B. Legal developments in international civil aviation, 2006, Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report, Order Code RL33255, American Law Division, Congressional Research Service. Washington, USA.Google Scholar
34. Dalamagkidis, K., Valavanis, K.P. and Piegl, L.A. Current status and future perspectives for unmanned aircraft system operations in the US, J Intelligent and Robotic Systems (Online), 2008, Ref DOI 10.1007/s10846-008-9213-x, Springer Science and Business Media BV, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
35. FAA. Airworthiness certification of unmanned aircraft systems, Draft Order 8130 UAS, 2008, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
36. Transport Canada. Unmanned Air Vehicle Working Group Final Report, Cited 6 May 2008, Civil Aviation, Transport Canada. http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/general/Recavi/uavworkinggroup.ht m#12.1.Google Scholar
37. CASA. Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (Consolidation, including amendments up to 25 July 2007), Part 101, Unmanned Aircraft and Rocket Operations, 2007, Legislative Drafting Branch, Legal Services Group, Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
38. South African Government. Act No 13 of 2009: Civil Aviation Act, South African Government Gazette, 27 May 2009, 461, (32266), Cape Town, South Africa.Google Scholar
39. Beek, C.Z.A. Aviation legislation in South Africa, Volume 1: Aviation Act No 74 of 1962, 2008, Service Issue 38, October 2008, LexisNexis, Durban, South Africa.Google Scholar
40. Beek, C.Z.A. Aviation legislation in South Africa, Volume 2: Civil aviation regulations, 1997, Service Issue 20, December 2008. LexisNexis. Durban, South Africa.Google Scholar
41. Ministry of Defence. Regulation of the airworthiness of Ministry of Defence aircraft, JSP 318B, Fourth Edition AL2, 1999, Defence Aviation Safety Board, MoD(DPA) Air Land Technology Group — ADRP, Bristol, UK. (Note: In 2003, JSP 318B was re-issued as JSP 553 as part of the Military Aviation Regulation Document Set. The policy content of the First Edition of JSP 553 is identical to that of JSP 318B Forrth Edition, http://www.ams.mod.uk/content/docs/avsaf/jsp553.htm, cited 16 November 2007.Google Scholar
42. Zwick, J. A multinational airworthiness experience, NATO Airborne Early Warning & Control Force Command (NAEW&C FC) presentation, 16–18 October 2006, EMAAG/IMAAC, German Air Force Materiel Command, Cologne, Germany.Google Scholar
43. Kirschner, L., Longeville, O., Harrison, S. and Bravarone, R. Investigation into harmonisation of military aviation regulation across the EU — What outcome should industry aim for?, 23 April 2007 Document No ECATA MTP2 130 Final Report R1v2, ECATA MTP2 Team, European Consortium for Advanced Training in Aerospace (ECATA), Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
44. EASA. CS-23, Certification specifications for normal, utility, aerobatic, and commuter category aeroplanes, ED Decision 2003/14/RM, 14 November 2003, European Aviation Safety Agency, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
45 Military Flight Safety Inspectorate (FLYGI). Rules of military aviation (RML), Issue 2, 26 September 2000, Swedish Armed Forces. Sweden.Google Scholar
46. Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, Systems and Software Engineering, Systems engineering guide for systems of systems, 2008, Version 1.0, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
47. NASA. NASA procedural requirements: Systems engineering processes and requirements, NPR 7123.1A, 26 March 2007, Office of the Chief Engineer, NASA, USA.Google Scholar