air4all ‘uav insertion into general air traffic’ esa …...autonomous behaviour fault management...
TRANSCRIPT
1Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
Air4All
‘UAV Insertion into General Air Traffic’
ESA-EDA Workshop
Noordwijk, May 27th & 28th, 2009
Presented by Jean-Louis Roch, Thales Aerospace
2Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
UAS Developments within Europe
12 European UAS industry leaders haveformed together the Air4All Group to jointly
define how to solve the issue of UAS insertion into Non-Segregated airspace.
This has been initiated within the ASD*
*ASD : AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe
3Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
Benefits to Europe• European commercial and state customer will have access to European
cost effective UAS solutions• Position Europe at the forefront of the development of airspace issues
for UASs• Develops a strong technology and industrial base in the UAS domain• Position the European Aeronautic sector to produce cost effective,
qualified and certified UAS products for the global market based on common core technologies
Vision: “To open European Air Space and have the required technology demonstrations in order to produce UAS that can routinely fly across
national borders”
Vision
4Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
Objective:
“Formulation of a route map for the technology and system demonstrations required to achieve the evolving regulatory requirements for State and Civil UASs”
Process:• Workshop 1: Feb 2008
• Understand the driving requirements – review existing material / views• Derive the barriers to operation in non segregated airspace• Derive the challenges technical, operational, procedural etc
• Workshop 2: May 2008• Understand the potential technology and system demonstration options• Agree the methods by which evidence can be acquired• Propose the level 1 route map for demonstrations
• Workshop 3: June 2008 • Evolve a strategy on how to “implement the route map”
Objectives of the Study
5Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
2,52,7
3,03,33,43,5
3,74,04,14,2
4,44,44,54,5
4,9
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0
Visual LandmarksSuitable Bandwidth for PayloadsSuperior Man Machine Interface
All Weather detectionAutomatic Take-Off and Landing
InteroperabilityGround Obstacle Avoidance
Autonomous BehaviourFault Management
Suitable Bandwidth for C2Sense & Avoid : Separation
Ability to ATC communicationsEmergency Recovery
Secure Command & ControlSense & Avoid : Collision Avoidance
RequirementFramework
Stakeholders
Barriers & Challenges
Study Methodology
Implementation Plan
6Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
Stake Holder Integration
Air4All Study
2,52,7
3,03,33,43,5
3,74,04,14,2
4,44,44,54,5
4,9
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0
Visual LandmarksSuitable Bandwidth for PayloadsSuperior Man Machine Interface
All Weather detectionAutomatic Take-Off and Landing
InteroperabilityGround Obstacle Avoidance
Autonomous BehaviourFault Management
Suitable Bandwidth for C2Sense & Avoid : Separation
Ability to ATC communicationsEmergency Recovery
Secure Command & ControlSense & Avoid : Collision Avoidance
1,0
2,0
3,0
3,0
9,0
17,0
17,0
25,0
0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0
Other: General Security: DL + GroundControl station
Automatic Take-Off and Landing
Emergency recovery
All Weather detection
Autonomous behavior
Command and control
Spectrum
Sense & Avoid
• Good Correlation between Questionnaire and Workshop1• Both constitute a complementary set of information• Results are used as an input to the study
Questionnaireresults
Workshopresults
7Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
Results of Requirements AnalysisThe need to define requirements
SECURITY
CREW LICENSING
AERODROMES
ATM
CONTROL STATION
OPERATION
MAINTENANCE
CONTINUING AIRWORTH.
PRODUCTION
DESIGN ORGANISATION
AIRWORTHINESS
The need for new activities
Only minor changes to existing work
Some work needsto be done but no major issues
Challenges and gaps that need to be resolved
8Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
Airspace classificationICAO ATS Airspace Classification
Subject to ATC clear.
Comm. to ATC
Separation provided by ATC
Type of flight
Airspace Class
NoNoNilVFR
NoCont. 2-wayNilIFRG
NoNot requiredNilVFR
NoCont. 2-wayIFR from IFRAs far as practic.
IFRF
NoNot requiredNilVFR
YesContinuous 2-wayIFR from IFRIFR
E
YesCont. 2-wayNoVFR
YesCont. 2-wayIFR from IFRIFR
D
YesCont. 2-wayVFR from IFRVFR
YesCont. 2-wayIFR from IFRIFR from VFR
IFR
C
YesCont. 2-wayAll aircraftVFR
YesCont. 2-wayAll aircraftIFRB
YesCont. 2-wayAll aircraftIFR onlyA
Con
trolle
d ai
rspa
ceU
ncon
trolle
d
All
traffi
c re
quire
s cl
eara
nce
to e
nter
Sep
arat
ion
of
IFR
from
all
tra
ffic
by A
TC
9Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
New stepwise approach
Step 1Segregated
Airspace
Step 2Non Segregated
Airspace
Step 4Non Segregated
Airspace
Step 3Non Segregated
Airspace
Fly within National Borders
Type Certificated UASs
State UASs Civil/State UASs
Non Type Certificated UASs
Experimental UASs
Step 5Non Segregated
Airspace
Worldwide ICAO
Step 1aSegregated
Airspace
Civil/State UASs
Type Certificated UASs
Civil/State UASs
Step 5aNon Segregated
Airspace
State UASs
Step 6Non Segregated
uncontrolled Airspace
Step 6Non Segregated
uncontrolled Airspace
IFR
IFR IFR / VFR
IFR
IFR/VFR
ADDITIONAL STEPSADDITIONAL STEPSNOT FULLY DEVELOPEDNOT FULLY DEVELOPED
IN THIS STUDYIN THIS STUDY
10Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
IFR / VFRIFR
IFR
IFR
IFR / VFRIFR
IFR
IFR
IFR / VFRIFR / VFRIFRIFR
IFRIFR
IFRIFRStep 2Step 1aStep 1 Step 2Step 1aStep 1
Step 5Step 4Step 3 Step 5Step 4Step 3
Step 5aStep 5a Step 6aStep 6aIFR / VFR
Step 6Step 6
Fly experimental UAS within national borders in segregated airspace (regular, at short timescale) – Unpopulated range
Fly experimental UAS within national borders in segregated airspace (regular, at short timescale) - overflown sparse
population
Fly an experimental UAS as IFR traffic within national borders in controlled, non-segregated airspace (airspace classes A, B, C)
Fly a national type certified state UAS as IFR traffic within national borders, routinely in controlled airspace (airspace classes A, B, C)
Fly a civil type certified UAS as IFR traffic within national borders, routinely in controlled airspace (airspace classes A, B, C)
Fly a civil or state UAS as IFR traffic across national borders, routinely in controlled airspace (airspace classes A, B, C)
Fly a civil or state UAS as IFR traffic across national borders, routinely in controlled airspace (airspace classes A, B, C, D, E)
Fly a state UAS as IFR and VFR traffic across national borders, routinely in non-controlled airspace (airspace classes A, B, C, D, E, F, G)
Fly a civil UAS as IFR and VFR traffic across national borders, routinely in non-controlled airspace (airspace classes A, B, C, D, E, F, G)
Roadmap
11Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
Challenges 1/2
Not requiredNot considered a challengeChallenge
D.1.14. Visual Landmark and Obstacle avoidance
D.1.11. Interoperability
D.1.13. Operator Interface
D.1.12. Autonomous behaviour / decision making
D.1.10. Weather detection /protection on board
D.1.9. Automatic taxiing
D.1.8. Automatic Take off /landing systems
D.1.7. Health monitoring/ fault detection
D.1.6. Dependable emergency recovery
D.1.5. ATC interface
D.1.4. Radio bandwidth allocation
D.1.3. Secure and sustainable communications for C2
D.1.2. Collision avoidance
D.1.1. Separation
D.1 Technical
Step 5Step 4Step 3Step 2Step 1aStep 1
D.1.14. Visual Landmark and Obstacle avoidance
D.1.11. Interoperability
D.1.13. Operator Interface
D.1.12. Autonomous behaviour / decision making
D.1.10. Weather detection /protection on board
D.1.9. Automatic taxiing
D.1.8. Automatic Take off /landing systems
D.1.7. Health monitoring/ fault detection
D.1.6. Dependable emergency recovery
D.1.5. ATC interface
D.1.4. Radio bandwidth allocation
D.1.3. Secure and sustainable communications for C2
D.1.2. Collision avoidance
D.1.1. Separation
D.1 Technical
Step 5Step 4Step 3Step 2Step 1aStep 1
12Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
Challenges 2/2
Not requiredNot considered a challengeChallenge
D.4.5 Impact on Environment
D.4.4 Production Organisation Approval
D.4.3 Design Organisation Approval
D.4.2 Product Liability
D.4.1 Public Acceptance
D.4. Transversal Issues
D.3.2 Security of Ground Station
D.3.1 UAS pilot /commander training:
D.3. Procedures and Training
D.2 Rules and Regulations
Step 5Step 4Step 3Step 2Step 1aStep 1
D.4.5 Impact on Environment
D.4.4 Production Organisation Approval
D.4.3 Design Organisation Approval
D.4.2 Product Liability
D.4.1 Public Acceptance
D.4. Transversal Issues
D.3.2 Security of Ground Station
D.3.1 UAS pilot /commander training:
D.3. Procedures and Training
D.2 Rules and Regulations
Step 5Step 4Step 3Step 2Step 1aStep 1
13Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009 13
Gap Analyses
1
2
3
WP 4: gap analyses•Filter / group challenges•Provide showstoppers•Provide possible way round
WP 5
14Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
Integrated Plan for Technology Threads
15Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
Q١ Q٢ Q٣ Q٤ Q١ Q٢ Q٣ Q٤ Q١ Q٢ Q٣ Q٤ Q١ Q٢ Q٣ Q٤ Q١ Q٢ Q٣ Q٤ Q١ Q٢ Q٣ Q٤ Q١ Q٢ Q٣ Q٤Step ١aStep ٢Step ٣Step ٤Step ٥
٢٠١٣ ٢٠١٤ ٢٠١٥٢٠٠٩ ٢٠١٠ ٢٠١١ ٢٠١٢
Challenges and Timelines Aircraft Separation (including consideration of future ATM) Collision avoidance (including future ATM) Secure and sustainable communications for command and control Air Traffic Control interface Radio bandwidth allocation Dependable emergency recovery Health monitoring/Fault detection Automatic take-off and landing Automatic taxiing Autonomous behaviour Weather detection and protection Harmonised military Type Certification process (manned and UAS) Agree rules and regulations with Authorities UAS pilot/commander training Security of Ground Station Public acceptance
Military UAV market entry point
Study conclusions in 2008
16Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
• Gain further comments of the stakeholder community on the original report and provide a response
• Improve pMS interaction with Consortium• Consider pMS national mission/scenario requirements and map to
Roadmap• Enhance the original study through additional work with some
preliminary work on:• Crew Licensing• Control Station Human Interface• Examination of Steps 5a to 6a and identify the concessions that could be
made to achieving flight in Class G airspace
Activities Performed in 2009
17Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
Stakeholders Comments
Participants• All 12 consortium members• BAE Systems lead
Objectives• Conduct active and direct engagement with MOD
representatives of pMS (nominated companies to lead)• Collect review and respond to pMS comments• Seek to identify a consensus of opinion on the key issues
18Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
Step 1Segregated
Airspace
Non Type Certificated UAVs Approved or Type Certificated State UAVs
Step 2 / Step3 Non Segregated
Airspace
Step 5Non Segregated
Airspace
Fly within National Borders, National Competence
State UAVsState UAVsExperimental State UAVs
Coordination Between Nations
Air4All Project Following pMs discussionsAir4All Project Following pMs discussions
Not to flight away from the
segregated airspace
Step 1Segregated
Airspace
Non Type Certificated UAVs Type Certificated UAVs
Step 2Non Segregated
Airspace
Step 4Non Segregated
Airspace
Step 5Non Segregated
Airspace
Step 3Non Segregated
Airspace
Fly within National Borders National Competence
State UAVsState UAVs Civil UAVsExperimental UAVs
Worldwide ICAO
Air4All Project
Air4All Project
Flight monitored by a dedicated
ATCo
Flight under dual ATCo
(civil & military)
Flight with its own specificity as the
other users
Adopt UAV Operational rules at International level
Requirements focused on Defence
19Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
Today Best Practices
Flexible Automation
Areas of Investigation
Scalability & Interoperability Pilot Situation Awareness
Human Factors
Approach into Design of Control StationsApproach into Design of Control Stations
20Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
UAS Pilot Situational AwarenessUAS Pilot Situational Awareness
The Control Station design should take into account, both in normal and emergency conditions:
• timely access/control of each system• immediate A/C performance, position, status knowledge• safety critical functions status and history• failure cases aids
through :• human factors driven design• prediction capabilities• different interaction mechanisms
21Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
Crew Licensing
• Cost savings and increased capabilities in military operations• improved interoperability based on common standards• common understanding of: duties, communications, roles• minimise ‘human error’ – more mission success, better safety• mixed crews in multi-national operations• supports GCS interoperability & implementation of common GCS (Task 3a)
• Cost savings in military training• Investment in training facilities and modular training• Same service offered to many pMS• Shared training
EDA UAS T&L Group
Medicalselectioncriteria
Required capabilities
Trainingissues,tools & methods
Proposed scope of a future study
22Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
IFR / VFRIFR
IFR
IFR
IFR / VFRIFR
IFR
IFR
IFR / VFRIFR / VFRIFRIFR
IFRIFR
IFRIFRStep 2Step 1aStep 1 Step 2Step 1aStep 1
Step 5Step 4Step 3 Step 5Step 4Step 3
Step 5aStep 5a Step 6aStep 6aIFR / VFR
Step 6Step 6
Fly experimental UAS within national borders in segregated airspace (regular, at short timescale) – Unpopulated range
Fly experimental UAS within national borders in segregated airspace (regular, at short timescale) - overflown sparse
population
Fly an experimental UAS as IFR traffic within national borders in controlled, non-segregated airspace (airspace classes A, B, C)
Fly a national type certified state UAS as IFR traffic within national borders, routinely in controlled airspace (airspace classes A, B, C)
Fly a civil type certified UAS as IFR traffic within national borders, routinely in controlled airspace (airspace classes A, B, C)
Fly a civil or state UAS as IFR traffic across national borders, routinely in controlled airspace (airspace classes A, B, C)
Fly a civil or state UAS as IFR traffic across national borders, routinely in controlled airspace (airspace classes A, B, C, D, E)
Fly a state UAS as IFR and VFR traffic across national borders, routinely in non-controlled airspace (airspace classes A, B, C, D, E, F, G)
Fly a civil UAS as IFR and VFR traffic across national borders, routinely in non-controlled airspace (airspace classes A, B, C, D, E, F, G)
Not covered in original Study
Analysis of Steps 5a to 6a
23Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
Not requiredNot considered a challengeChallenge
D1.14 Visual landmark and obstacle avoidance
D1.13 Operator interface
D1.12 Autonomous behavior/decision making
D1.11 Interoperability
D1.10 Weather detection / protection
D1.9 Automatic taxiing
D1.8 Automatic take off and landing
D1.7 Health monitoring/Fault detection
D1.6 Dependable emergency recovery
D1.5 ATC interface
D1.4 Radio bandwidth allocation
Step 6a
Step 6Step 5aStep 3 Step 4
D1.3 Secure and sustainable communication for C2
D1.2 Collision avoidance
D1.1 Separation
Step 5Step 2Step 1aStep 1Technical challengesIncreased Challenge
24Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
A 3-element approach is proposed:• Study to create rules for combined military aircraft and UAS
operations in segregated airspace for operational evaluation • Adaptation of these rules to non segregated airspace to
enable military UAS in controlled airspace as OAT (Classes A, B, C) in coordination with EUROCONTROL
• Programme leading to achievement of Step 5 – Cross-border IFR operations in Class A, B & C airspace
in co-ordination with ongoing programmes/activities
Recommendations (1)
25Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
Ground Station:• Conduct a project that harmonises across Europe a set of
rules for designing UAS Control Station human interfaces• Incorporate in any future demonstration programme
elements that exploit the UAS Mission Management “functionality” in the light of scalability and interoperability concepts
Crew Licensing:• Set up a POC’s UAS Training and Licensing group• Commission a study to define common minimum standards
for the licensing and training of military UAS crew• Propose a basis for common medical selection criteria,
required capabilities and training themes among pMS
Recommendations (2)
26Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
A set of technical surveys is required in the following capabilities:• Separation provision (in progress)• Collision avoidance (in progress)
• Autonomy• Obstacle avoidance• Weather detection
Recommendations (3)
27Proprietary Information© AIR4ALL 2009
Questions?More Information available @ www.air4all.net