ASCI 638, Module 2: UAV Factory Portable Ground Control Station

UAV Factory is a Latvian unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) developer founded in 2009, focusing primarily on building small composite fixed-wing aircraft such as the Penguin line of UAS. UAV Factory also features a line of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) payloads under the name Octopus ISR Systems (UAV Factory, 2016). They announced availability of a second-generation off-the-shelf portable ground control station (GCS) in January 2012 (Mortimer, 2012). The GCS is based in a ruggedized transportation case that opens to reveal a modular electronics compartment with a docking station for a Panasonic CF-31 Toughbook (not included), a second digital 17-inch touchscreen display, storage for accessories and peripherals, and power and connection ports for datalink equipment. An interesting feature is the various power supply options that accept between 10 and 32 volts DC, including two Makita BL1830 lithium batteries (yes, the power tool company) that can be swapped out without requiring the GCS to be shut down or restarted (UAV Factory, 2016).

Because the UAV Factory GCS is designed to be modular, portable, and customizable, some of the human factors concerns will depend on the user’s selection of hardware such as pointing devices (i.e. trackballs or touchpads) and aircraft or payload controls (i.e. joysticks or gamepads). This discussion will be based on two negative factors with the GCS itself, regardless of user configuration.

The first is an issue with the included 17-inch display. Technical documents and marketing material did not specifically mention the supplier. Images in promotional material show a very glossy surface of the display, which would lead to a high level of glare when used in an outdoor environment (see Figure 1). Glare can be caused by sunlight if used in an outdoor environment, and interior lights if used indoors. The worst effect of sunlight on flat panel displays is the “reduction of display contrast” when the light illuminates both the background of an image and the contrasted shade or coloring (Rash and Manning, 2003). To avoid glare from outdoor or indoor light sources, a recommended solution would be to install a simple folding glare shield made of dark material that could shield the displays from above and beside. Additional shading would likely be required if operating outdoors on a sunny day, but a dark glare shield would greatly reduce the amount of direct light on the screen.

Figure 1. UAV Factory GCS assembly, from http://www.uavfactory.com/product/16.

The second issue is the integration of the Panasonic Toughbook in an inset manner that places the keyboard on an even plane with the work surface. This places the keyboard in a vulnerable position for being bumped or accidentally pressed while moving around the workspace, especially when intercom or datalink cables are connected and routed around the GCS. In 2011, an MQ-8B Fire Scout UAS flying from Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD lost link with the GCS and began flying towards restricted airspace around Washington, DC. Control was regained before drastic measures were required, but the incident was traced to an accidental press of the keyboard spacebar from an operator’s headset wire, which initiated a self-destruct procedure (Fox News, 2011). A similar event could easily occur with the design of the UAV Factory GCS. A recommended measure would be to install a shield around the perimeter of the keyboard that would create an “inset” for the keys and provide a layer of separation between the keyboard and items that could accidentally rest on top of it (i.e. manuals, checklists, wires, operator’s arms, etc.).

A similar issue can be seen with the design of the Airbus A380 and A350 cockpits, which include a fold-out keyboard and trackpad (Ferhm, 2015). However, this issue is mitigated by delegating the functions of the keyboard to the electronic flight bag to access maps and charts, not essential aircraft functions. Input to the aircraft Flight Management System is made through a smaller keypad and trackball located on the center console (Ferhm, 2015).

References

Fehrm, B. (2015, June). Airbus A350 cockpit compared to A320/A330. Retrieved from https://leehamnews.com/2015/06/01/airbus-a350-cockpit-compared-to-a320a330/

Fox News. (2011, July). Single keystroke nearly self-destructs unmanned Navy copter. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2011/07/18/single-key-stroke-nearly-leads-unmanned-navy-copter-to-self-destruct.html

Rash, C.E. and Manning, S.D. (2003, September). On the flight deck, lighting must satisfy a variety of needs. Flight Safety Foundation Human Factors & Aviation Medicine, 50(5). Retrieved from https://flightsafety.org/hf/hf_sept-oct03.pdf

UAV Factory. (2016). Portable ground control station. Retrieved from http://www.uavfactory.com/product/16

Advances in UAS Traffic Managment

NY works with NASA to develop UAS traffic management system

Patrick C. Miller, UASMagazine, November 17, 2016

This article informs my opinion that a large advancement in UAS technology in the near future will not necessarily come via specific technology, but rather the industry-wide standards to support it. The proliferation of unmanned aircraft technology has led to some very fascinating developments in recent years, which leaves many observers of the UAS industry wondering what could possibly be next. Aircraft systems are increasing sophistication while decreasing size, which opens up an area with high growth potential: integrated air traffic control systems. Providing a new or safer perspective is only a portion of the benefit of operating a UAS; a true benefit to UAS operations is the ability to fly beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS). However, without the ability to “sense and avoid” (S&A) other aircraft and obstacles on the ground, the safety of UAS flight cannot be completely guaranteed. Manned aircraft rules in the U.S. require pilots to “see and avoid other aircraft,” regardless of operating under visual or instrument flight rules (Yodice, 2015). Enter automated traffic management systems. In November 2016, the state of New York announced a $30 million investment that will be coordinated by the Griffiss International Airport UAS test site in Rome, NY, with intent to develop a traffic management system to control UAS flights along a 50-mile corridor between Rome and Syracuse, NY (Miller, 2016).

Developing a common air traffic control system means that all of the aircraft sharing the airspace must meet certain technological standards. In the case of the NY control corridor, NASA is working with industry partners to develop the technology to bring UAS traffic management into reality. NASA standards are based on Technology Capability Levels (TCLs), and a real-world UAS control corridor would be the next step in development (TCL 2).

Another set of technological standards is in work by the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) special committee for UAS minimum aviation system performance standards (MASPS) (SC-203). The committee consists of subsystem working groups, one of which is focused on the standards for the development of S&A technology. By demonstrating conformance to a standard, UAS system developers can accomplish most of the work towards satisfying a safety case for their system, especially when seeing integration into controlled airspace (Zeitlin, 2010).

A different approach with the same goal of automated UAS airspace integration is ongoing in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), in a direct collaboration between Nokia and the UAE General Civial Aviation Authority (GCAA). The difference is that Nokia is working directly with the

With successful implementation of NASA/FAA teaming for the advancement of a traffic management system, along with industry adoption of RTCA standards, the next 5-10 years will potentially see a large increase in BVLOS flights by UAS of all sizes. This will only occur when ground-based traffic management systems operate in concert with UAS that meet industry and regulatory technological standards.  

References:

Miller, P.C. (2016, November). NY works with NASA to develop UAS traffic management system. UAS Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.uasmagazine.com/articles/1601/ny-works-with-nasa-to-develop-uas-traffic-management-system

Yodice, J.S. (2015, August). The “see and avoid” rules: helping out the NTSB. Retrieved from https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2015/august/pilot/counsel

Zeitlin, A. D. (2010). Progress on requirements and standards for sense & avoid. MITRE Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/pdf/10_2799.pdf

UAS Use in Railway Inspections

Inspection of railroad track systems and right-of-ways has been a prime objective for commercial UAS. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad is one of the FAA’s original Pathfinder program companies, working to test beyond-line-of-sight technology, training, and safety. In the October 2016 volume of Inside Unmanned Systems, Renee Knight profiled the use of UAS in rail inspection and maintenance. BNSF maintains 32,000 miles of track in the Western U.S., and uses a variety of inspection tools and techniques. The three primary structures that are routinely inspected are the ballast structure that supports the rails and ensures proper water drainage, bridges, and the rails themselves. The ballast structure is inspected using penetrating radar, while bridges are normally inspected by crews in lifts or cherry pickers. Rail integrity is normally checked by vehicle or on foot. However, a UAS can accomplish all of these tasks remotely, without putting a human in harm’s way, and without requiring the shut-down of a rail section. UAS increase fidelity of bridge inspections by providing a visual reference over time that can show changes in the structure. Ultimately, detailed inspections do not get better than the human eye, but where routine inspections are required, UAS provide an advantage by being quick to deploy and safe for the human crews.

UAS can also be used by rail crews and emergency responders in the event of an accident, by using thermal cameras to scan the cars that require the greatest amount of cooling. Additionally, if a freight train needs to stop because of an issue, the crew must check the length of the train – which could reach up to more than a mile and a half. Utilizing a small UAS to conduct a visual inspection of the train’s condition would save valuable time.

A current limitation of UAS (outside of regulatory line-of-sight rules) is the relatively short range of common multi-rotor aircraft, which are typically battery-powered. High-end commercial models may reach up to 30 minutes of battery life. In comparison, a manned helicopter carrying an infrared camera, near-IR camera, and stabilized zoom camera can cover hundreds of miles in a day, albeit at great cost of fuel and crew (Rail Engineer, 2011).

Testing beyond-line-of-sight flights to improve U.S. regulations is already underway, with railway inspections being one of the key industries to benefit from UAS. We can definitely expect to see regular use of UAS in the rail industry very soon, which benefits the industry at large with lessons learned and new technology developments.

References:

Knight, R. (2016, October). Flying the rails. Inside Unmanned Systems, Oct-Nov 2016. Retrieved from http://insideunmannedsystems.com/flying-the-rails/

Rail Engineer. (2011, July). Bird’s eye view from Network Rail’s helicopter. Retrieved from http://www.railengineer.uk/2011/07/08/birds-eye-view-from-network-rails-helicopter/