uas to support airport safety and - university of toronto ... · uas to support airport safety and...

Draft

UAS to Support Airport Safety and

Operations: Opportunities and Challenges

Journal: Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems

Manuscript ID juvs-2016-0020.R2

Manuscript Type: Article

Date Submitted by the Author: 04-May-2017

Complete List of Authors: Hubbard, Sarah; Purdue University System, Aviation and Transportation Technology Pak, Andrew; Purdue University System, Aviation and Transportation Technology Gu, Yue; Purdue University System, Aviation and Transportation Technology

Jin, Yan; Purdue University System, Aviation and Transportation Technology

Keyword: airport operations, UAS, Part 107, drone, UAV

Is the invited manuscript for consideration in a Special

Issue? : N/A

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/juvs-pubs

Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems

Draft

Running head: UAS to Support Airport Safety and Operations 1

UAS to Support Airport Safety and Operations: Opportunities and Challenges

Sarah Hubbard

Purdue University

Andrew Pak

Purdue University

Yue Gu

Purdue University

Yan Jin

Purdue University

Author Note

Sarah Hubbard is an Assistant Professor in the School of Aviation and Transportation

Technology at Purdue University. Andrew Pak was an undergraduate student at Purdue University and

is now at American Airlines. Yu Gu is a graduate student at Purdue University. Yan Jin was a graduate

student at Purdue University and is now at American Airlines.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sarah Hubbard, 1401 Aviation

Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2015.

Contact: [email protected], Phone: 765-494-0171, Fax: 4765-494-2305.

Page 1 of 36



Draft


Abstract

The promulgation of Part 107 rules in June 2016 by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

reduces the administrative burden for using unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and provides

enhanced opportunities to utilize UAS in a variety of capacities. Previous studies such as the

Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) UAS primer have examined the framework for

serving UAS as an aeronautical user, and there are anecdotal case studies that present the use of

UAS for selected application, however, there has been limited documentation of the

opportunities and challenges for the use of UAS for airport activities on airport property. This

paper presents potential opportunities for the use of small UAS to enhance safety and operations

in the airport environment, and identifies the issues that will need to be addressed.

Keywords: airport operations, UAS, Part 107, drone, UAV

Page 2 of 36



Draft


UAS to Support Airport Safety and Operations: Opportunities and Challenges

Unmanned aerial systems (UAS) are currently used in agriculture, real estate,

construction and utilities for surveying, photo and videos, and inspection. In June 2016, Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) published the new Small UAS Rule, aka Part 107, effective

August 29, 2016. These rules create a framework for licensure and operation of UAS by

designation of a certification process and responsibilities for the remote pilot in command (PIC).

Since small UAS include all unmanned aircraft under 55 pounds, the impact of this regulation is

significant. Activities that would have previously required an exemption by FAA can now be

undertaken by a certified remote PIC, and it is expected that the resulting opportunities will

translate to more than 100,000 new jobs and $82B in the next decade (Federal Aviation

Administration 2016a).

While there has been documentation related to the use of UAS at airports, it has typically

addressed issues related to operational issues regarding the integration of larger UAS at airports

(Neubauer 2015) and airspace considerations (Borener 2015; Federal Aviation Administration

2015; Maddox 2015; Park 2013). Selected airports, such as Fallon Airport and Silver Springs

Airport in Nevada, have even developed master planning projections that incorporate UAS in

aeronautical user activity (Worrells 2015). Other airports have included physical facilities for

UAS, including Purdue Airport in Indiana, which has a UAS runway in the master plan, and

Eastern Oregon Regional Airport, which considers UAS requirements for both airside and

landside needs for UAS, with UAS needs identified by group 1 (up to 20 lbs) through 5 (more

than 1320 lbs) (Century West Engineering Corporation 2015). In contrast, this paper focuses on

the use of small UAS for airport activities, such as those conducted by the airport sponsor,

airport tenants, and airport contractors. The objective of this paper is to identify opportunities to

Page 3 of 36



Draft


use UAS at airports, as well as challenges that may need to be addressed for successful

integration.

Opportunities for Using UAS at Airports

Opportunities to utilize UAS at airports include obstruction analysis, pavement condition

assessment and inspection, airfield light inspections, wildlife management, security, emergency

response and construction.

Obstruction Analysis

Maintenance of an obstacle free path for take-offs and approaches is critical for safety

and mandated in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77. Part 77 defines imaginary surfaces

which must be clear of possible hazards and requires that airports map these surfaces as part of

the airport layout plan (ALP) and identify potential hazards due to vegetation growth,

construction or other changes nearby. Traditional obstruction analysis uses conventional aircraft

photography and ground based surveying equipment, which is expensive due to the specialized

equipment and expertise required.

Obstruction analysis utilizing UAS may reduce costs as well as turnaround time, based on

the successful demonstration by users such as the South Carolina Aeronautics Commission

(SCAC) (Stephens 2016; Garvey 2016). Safety inspections for obstacles on the runway

approach may be based on rudimentary methods such a visual check using an Abney level and

clinometer, and are typically completed on a periodic basis for compliance with Part 139

requirements at certified airports per specification in Advisory Circular 150/5200-18 (Federal

Aviation Administration 2004).. If there is an obstacle, then an aerial mapping survey may be

conducted, which typically costs $8,000 to $10,000 per runway using traditional aircraft. For an

airport with a primary runway and a crosswind runway, the cost to map four approaches may be

Page 4 of 36



Draft


$75,000. This one-time expense exceeds the cost of a fixed wing UAS and mapping software;

South Carolina used a SenseFlyEBee RTK and ArcGIS (total cost approximately $50,000) to

conduct obstacle mapping at numerous airports in their jurisdiction (Garvey 2016). It would also

be possible to conduct obstacle mapping with a lower cost system. A quadcopter with geocoding

capabilities and mapping through an internet based service would be an inexpensive alternative if

a limited number of maps are required and if the maps do not require frequent revisions; this

could be accomplished for a couple thousand dollars.

The precision of data collected by UAS would be adequate to meet many airport needs.

Garvey (2016) reports precision of 4 inches horizontally and 6 inches vertically, which is

generally consistent but slightly higher than manufacturer claims (e.g., 1.2 inch without ground

control points (senseFly n.d.) and Siebert and Teizer (2014) reported applications of 0.4 inches

horizontally and 1.0 inch vertically.

Data collected by UAS could be used not only for obstacle mapping and airport

surveying but also to support instrument approach procedures. The imagery and data would be

accepted by the FAA Office of Airports as long as it meets the criteria in the appropriate

Advisory Circular (AC), including AC 120-91 for Airport Obstacle Analysis (Federal Aviation

Administration 2006), AC 150/5300-17(Federal Aviation Administration 2011) for remote

sensing technologies, and AC 150/5300-18 for aeronautical surveys. The required accuracies

(e.g., pixel resolution and scale specified in AC 150/5300-17) are attainable, however, the

recommended flying heights that are specified relate to conventional aircraft rather than UAS

(e.g., the lowest flying height is 1800 ft). UAS could be used to collect geospatial airport and

aeronautical data per AC 150/5300-18 for airport surveying (Federal Aviation Administration,

2009b), as long as the image overlap and sidelap support stereo imagery per the required

Page 5 of 36



Draft


standards. Meeting the technical standards using data collected by UAS may be less burdensome

than the operational and regulatory hurdles related to collecting the data with UAS at airports in

Class B, C, D and E airspace.

It is possible to work through the operational and regulatory issues of using UAS at

airports, as demonstrated by South Carolina’s successful collaboration with managers from the

FAA Southern Region, the Airports District Office, NextGen and the UAS Program (South

Carolina Aeronautics Commission Recognized with Most Innovative State Award 2016). The

resulting cost savings due to the use of UAS allow increased frequency of inspections and assure

that information is kept up to date (Stephens 2016). General aviation (GA) airports often cannot

afford full scale traditional aerial mapping, and data often becomes outdated between updates

due to the significant expense. The use of UAS allows mapping and the associated obstruction

assessment to be completed in a single day, which facilitates compliance with grant assurances

and airport data master record compliance (through form 5010). SCAC estimates that the

investment in UAS equipment and software will be recovered after completing five airports, so

the system will recover its cost in less than one year (Stephens 2016). The cost effectiveness for

UAS for obstruction analysis may be most compelling for a state agency that regulates many

airports, or for an airport authority with multiple airports under its authority. The cost

effectiveness for UAS may also be compelling if the UAS is used for other applications, as

discussed in later sections.

Advantages of UAS to document airport obstructions is not only less expensive, but is

also faster and in many cases more precise. With standard data collection, it may be weeks until

the data is available and the conventional inspection process using conventional survey

equipment may have data entry errors, reduced accuracy at longer distances, and limited data

Page 6 of 36



Draft


collection beyond the trees that are visible from the runway end. Use of a UAS and supporting

GIS software allows an airport to conduct the inspection, process the data in-house, validate the

data using software tools, and use the obstruction profiles and maps in a GIS format that can be

accessed through internet applications and exported into other compatible programs (e.g., the 3D

map can be accessed via ArcMap and exported to AutoCad). In this regard, the use of a UAS

may not just provide a more cost effective solution, but also may allow an airport to have a more

robust tool for a variety of uses.

As the UAS industry matures and airport applications become more common, it is likely

that UAS will replace conventional aircraft for the outsourcing of obstacle mapping and aerial

surveys, and the cost to use contractors to provide aerial surveys will decrease accordingly.

Pavement Condition and Inspections

Pavement condition inspections are an important component of a pavement management

program and help airports maximize the lifetime and minimize lifecycle costs of pavements.

Using conventional pavement condition assessment methods, the runway or taxiway is closed to

allow a visual inspection for signs of distress, including deterioration such as cracking (e.g.,

alligator, block, edge), raveling, rutting, settlement, bleeding, and potholes in asphalt (Asphalt

Institute 2016) and cracking (e.g., corner, longitudinal, transverse), joint damage and failure,

scaling and other surface defects, and blow-ups in concrete (Miller 2003). During a traditional

pavement inspection, inspectors walk over the pavement and identify visible distress within each

designated pavement area. Many airports use the pavement condition index (PCI) (ASTM 2012)

value, which is assigned based on the distress types, severity and quantity.

Inspection requirements vary depending on airport certification, as well as the pavement

management system used, the condition level and rate of deterioration of the pavement. The AC

Page 7 of 36



Draft


for the Airport Pavement Management Program (PMP) says there should be annual detailed

inspections, and less comprehensive daily, weekly and monthly inspections. If the PCI is used,

then the condition inspection interval can be extended until three years (Federal Aviation

Administration 2014a). While reducing the inspection interval reduces disruption to airport

operations, it may not support the early identification of problems and the associated

preventative maintenance, which is important to minimize lifecycle costs. For this reason, a

more frequent inspection interval is desirable; the opportunity for a more frequent and less

disruptive inspection using a UAS would be beneficial.

Benefits of UAS for pavement condition assessment and inspections include availability

of high-resolution photographs that can be used for documentation of pavement condition and

development of pavement asset management program. Imaging can be integrated with airport

GIS programs and used for documentation of pavement changes over time. The use of high-

resolution photographs and advanced image processing that is facilitated by data collected by

UAS has been demonstrated to be useful in pavement infrastructure monitoring in other

modes,(Koch 2015) (Schnebele 2015) and there are a number of methods that have been

developed to provide image processing for condition assessment based on high-resolution

photos. In recent years, condition assessment and defect detection have become an essential

tool, and build on a variety of techniques including template matching, background subtraction,

filtering, edge and boundary detection, region growing, and texture recognition (Koch 2015).

Condition assessment can also be enhanced by the use of other remote sensing technologies

mounted on a UAS (Schnebele 2015). Remote sensing technologies include laser scanners

(including LIDAR), ground penetrating radar (GPR), thermal imaging, and acoustics (Schnebele

2015).

Page 8 of 36



Draft


UAS provides one platform by which pavement images data can be taken. It would also

be appropriate to consider use of an unmanned ground system (UGS) for pavement assessment.

Such a system may provide many of the advantages of a UAS (e.g., autonomous and provide

advanced imaging), with the added benefit that it does not require permission to use the airspace

in an airport environment. For pavement condition assessment, most conventional ground based

systems utilize a vehicle with a driver; these systems are typically fairly expensive, and airports

tend to contract out rather than self-perform this function. While a UGS does provide

simplification with respect to airspace considerations, UAS provide an advantage because the

images can be collected from a height of 20 to 25 feet, and the higher vantage point provides a

broader field of view requiring fewer passes and a shorter runway closure time than a traditional

runway inspection. This minimizes disruption and the costs associated with temporary closure.

UAS pavement condition assessment has been used at airports in Germany (Hamburg

Finkenwerder, EDHI) and France (Charles de Gaulle, CDG). An inspection of the runway for

pavement condition via UAS can be completed in 30 minutes, using three runs of 10 minutes

eliminates the need for runway and taxiway closure; an analogous inspection via conventional

methods may require 6 to 8 hours (Airsight). The primary constraint for the use of UAS for

pavement inspections is not the technology to conduct the inspection since automated inspection

of pavement cracks is proven technology, but obtaining approval to do so within aviation

regulations.

UAS and UGS can also be used for regular pavement inspections such as daily

inspections for foreign object debris (FOD). UGS systems for FOD detection have been

demonstrated from a technical perspective and are theoretically cost-effective (Ozturk and

Kuzucuoglu 2016), however, they are not widely utilized. FOD detection via imaging does

Page 9 of 36



Draft


provide potential advantages due to the elimination of errors associated with visual inspection,

and imaging techniques using stationary cameras such as gigapixel panoramas have been

proposed and tested (Heymsfield and Kuss 2014). Traditional automated FOD detection is based

on radar (stationary and mobile), stationary electro-optical, and stationary hybrid radar and

electo-optical (Federal Aviation Administration 2009a). These automated systems provide

continuous monitoring but are expensive. UAS systems for FOD inspection are potentially a

much more cost effective and flexible system. One potential limitation of UAS systems for FOD

inspection is that if FOD is identified, personnel still need to be dispatched to remove the FOD.

Airfield Light Inspections

UAS may also be used to conduct light inspections to confirm airfield lighting is

operational and adequate to ensure visibility, safety, and compliance with FAA and International

Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards. Daily inspections at twilight or night each day

confirm that lights are operational, and periodic inspections (e.g., monthly) confirm that intensity

is adequate (Federal Aviation Administration 2014b). Light intensity may diminish due to a

variety of factors, including the results of aging, dust and dirt, and rubber deposits from aircraft

braking. In current practice, photometric measuring devices are typically mounted on a vehicle,

which drives the airfield and measures the lumens given off by airfield lights. One advantage of

a system on a UAS is that it could easily be flown at different heights, eliminating the need to

physically change the height of the vehicle-mounted photometric calibration equipment, in many

cases, a time consuming process.

Wildlife Management

In the aviation industry, wildlife strikes occur 26 times per day and cause $950 M of

damage per year in the US, and $1.3 B worldwide (Begier 2014). Every airport certified under

Page 10 of 36



Draft


Part 139 is required to have a wildlife hazard mitigation program, so wildlife control is now a

core component of airport operations. Wildlife control activities include identification of species

present at the airport, identification of habitats and food sources that may attract wildlife, and

identification and implementation of appropriate control methods including lethal and non-lethal

means to remove wildlife from the airport. While a significant component of wildlife

management is focused on birds because birds comprise 97% of reported strikes (Dolbeer 2015),

other wildlife must also be considered. The integrity of the airport perimeter is typically

maintained using a chain-linked fence which not only ensures security as discussed in the next

section, but also supports wildlife management by excluding larger animals such as deer.

Potential applications for UAS to support wildlife management activities at airports are

extensive. These applications include identification of nests and burrows, habitat evaluations,

identification of nuisance wildlife, wildlife tracking and capturing wildlife, obtaining prey

abundance indices, determining the age of birds so they can be relocated at the optimal time to

reduce the need for fostering, wildlife attractant quality assessments, wildlife hazing and wildlife

harassment without an audible deterrent. The US Geological Society (USGS) has used UAS to

survey wildlife habitats (Toscano 2014) because UAS provide numerous advantages including

safety for wildlife biologists, better data and imagery, ability to access locations inaccessible

from the ground, documentation of ground cover (Bird 2014). One wildlife management pilot

study found that a UAS survey was able to identify substantially more nests than a ground count

(Bird 2014). Identification and removal of nesting sites is an important component of an airport

wildlife management plan. Another potential application is UAS imaging of species to confirm

identification by wildlife experts that are offsite since allowable mitigation activities vary

depending on the species.

Page 11 of 36



Draft


UAS may also house powerful sonic devices or may be disguised as a predator to

discourage birds on airfields. Pyrotechnic recordings mounted on UAS may provide an excellent

opportunity for cost savings. Airports spend many thousands of dollars on pyrotechnic devices,

and a single pyrotechnic shell may cost $10 (Oppmann 2009) or more. UAS have also

successfully been used to physically dissuade birds from an area. The most successful mitigation

strategy varies depending on the species, due to both considerations of both regulations and

effectiveness. Some kinds of birds require special permits from federal, state and even local

agencies. For example, airports require a special permit to discourage or hunt migratory birds

with a UAS not only in the United States, but also in Canada, Mexico, Japan and Russia, due to

the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services 2015). Bird

species that are not protected by federal regulations, such as European starlings and rock

pigeons, could be harassed with fewer constraints, and may only require authorization from state

agencies.

UAS may also be useful to track individual wildlife, including birds or animals, such as

deer or coyotes. Although mammal incidents are less common, they are more likely to result in

aircraft damage: land mammals represent only 2.3% of incidents, but cause damage in 59% of

the incidents; bird incidents cause damage in 13% of the incidents (Dolbeer, Wright, Weller, and

Begier 2012). In some cases, airport operations personnel report challenges finding an animal

known to be on airport property. The aerial vantage point provided by a UAS may make this

task easier, especially when combined with infrared (IR) imaging technology. UAS

manufacturers are increasingly including IR as an optional component that can be purchased.

For example, DJI includes a FLIR IR system as on option on a number of quadcopter UAS, and

senseFly includes an IR system for hybrid UAS (fixed wing UAS with vertical takeoff and

Page 12 of 36



Draft


landing (VTOL). Quadcopter systems are less expensive, however, hybrid UAS have longer

ranges and higher speeds. The cost of IR systems vary; $5,000 to $6,000 may be a reasonable

value for an IR unit and the mounting equipment for planning purposes. For an IR equipped

UAS, the total system cost may be $8,000 to $10,000. Costs would be higher for IR units that

are able to discern smaller differences.

The use and characteristics of UAS in wildlife monitoring has been documented

previously (Linchant, Lisein, Semeki, Lejeune and Vermeulen 2015), although the focus has not

been utilization in the airport environment. In addition to UAS, there are also potential

applications for unmanned water systems (UWS), particularly for airports adjacent to large

bodies of water. UWS and UAS over water offer a potential mitigation tool to manage

waterfowl. Waterfowl have been the focus of numerous wildlife surveys using UAS, since UAS

provide access to habitats that are otherwise difficult to access (Chabot and Bird 2015). UAS

may also be useful to test and calibrate wildlife detection systems used at airports. Automated

bird detection systems may utilize radar and/or infrared technologies (Carter 2016). UAS may be

used to test and calibrate aviation radar, as demonstrated at Sea-Tac (SEA) Airport in 2011

(Brand et al. 2011).

UAS have been utilized for wildlife management at selected airports, including Southern

Illinois Airport in Murphysboro (MDH) (Brewster 2016) and Salina Regional Airport (SLN) in

Kansas (Toscano 2014).

Security

Aviation security is an important activity and the Transportation Security Administration

(TSA) is responsible for security at all airports, providing security regulations at certified airports

and security guidance at general aviation (GA) airports. Security at individual airports is

Page 13 of 36



Draft


important to support national airport security, since even the smallest airport provides access to

the national airspace and the larger airport system. One important factor for aviation security is

airport perimeter security, and a recent report from the Government Accountability Office

(GAO) identified airport perimeter security as a potential vulnerability with an average of 2,500

incidents of unauthorized per year from 2009 to 2015 due to breeches of the airport perimeter

and airport access points (Marsh 2016). According to Rep. William Keating from

Massachusetts, "The intense scrutiny placed at checkpoints in airports, but not on the perimeter,

is the equivalent of locking your home's doors while leaving your windows wide open. The

GAO found that in many instances, the windows are open at our airports." (Marsh 2016).

While some of the 2,500 annual breeches would not be addressed by increased perimeter

security since they are due to workers exploiting their credentials (US Government

Accountability Office 2016), UAS can facilitate fence and gate lock inspections, and may

supplement other security measures through perimeter checks at random times throughout the

day. Any increase in efficiency for inspections could have a significant annual impact since even

a small hub airport may be required to do as many as six inspections a day.

Since many airports have extensive acreage and boundaries may be far from active

runways and over area that is not populated, UAS may be an appropriate tool to increase security

with minimal risk or impact on aeronautical activity. Advantages of UAS for perimeter security

include ability to traverse challenging terrain quickly, surveillance at a faster speed than would

be possible on foot, and surveillance of areas not accessible by vehicle. There may also be

opportunities for UGS to provide perimeter checks, without requiring airspace approval.

UAS have also been deployed to support airport security by enhancing surveillance and

response capabilities. UAS are used for surveillance at numerous airports in England including

Page 14 of 36



Draft


Heathrow (LHR), Stansted (STN), Luton (LTN) and Gatwick (LGW) (Beake 2015), as well as

Israel (TLV).

Deployments in England occurred after a year and a half of successful use and testing at

Gatwick Airport (Beake 2015). The National Counter Terrorism Policing Headquarters noted

that UAS can carry out missions seven times faster and at one-tenth the cost of ground based

activities, reducing the number of officers needed for patrols and saving £1.2m ($1.5m USD) in

three years (Beake 2015). The Aeryon SkyRanger has been used at Gatwick since 2014, and was

approved for use by the FAA for enforcement activities by the Michigan State Police. The State

Police aviation unit purchased a SkyRanger in 2013 for $158,000 in September 2013

(Greenwood 2015). The SkyRanger quadcopter offers a longer flight time (at 50 minutes it is

more than double typical quadcopters), and higher tolerance for wind and temperature extremes

(it can handle gusts up to 65 kph and a temperature range from -22 to 122 degrees F) than less

expensive UAS. Less expensive UAS are also an option, particularly for smaller airports. For

example, the hybrid FireFLY6 PRO UAS (fixed wing UAS and VTOL) could be used for

perimeter inspections at a small airport (nominal range of 7 miles) and could be purchased for

less than $10,000. A less expensive system has more limited operating conditions not only with

respect to range but also with respect to wind tolerance. A basic surveillance system may

include video only, whereas a more robust system may include automated video detection and

alerts.

Security considerations regarding UAS and airports also include the need to identify

unauthorized UAS in airport airspace. UAS detection systems are important since pilot reports

of UAS near their flight path are becoming increasingly common; in 2016, FAA received more

than 100 reports of UAS citings per month (Lynch 2016). The FAA and the Department of

Page 15 of 36



Draft


Homeland Security (DHS) have been working together to develop technologies to detect

unauthorized UAS flying near airports. The SkyTracker system was tested in February 2016 at

the Atlantic City Airport (ACY) in New Jersey, where the FAA Technical Center is located

(Marsh and Patterson 2016), and at the Denver Airport (DEN) in November, 2016 (Lynch

2016).. Other evaluation sites include JFK Airport (JFK), Eglin Air Force Base (VPS), Helsinki

Airport (HEL) and Dallas-Ft. Worth Airport (DFW). Other technologies being evaluated by the

FAA for drone detection include AUDS by Liteye, and AIRFENCE by Sensofusion (Lynch

2016).

The Ohio Department of Transportation and the Air Force Research Lab are also working

together to develop a sense-and-avoid system, with research to be conducted at the Ohio/Indiana

UAS Test Center at the Springfield Airport (SGH). The new technology, which will utilize

ground-based sensors and is being funded with $6.5 million from the Air Force, the State of Ohio

and the Ohio Department of Transportation, is being developed by researchers at the Wright-

Patterson Air Force Base and aspires to obtain FAA approval to fly UAS beyond line of sight

(Bischoff 2016). Drone Guard, a system to detect, identify and disrupt small UAS is used at Ben

Gurion Airport (TLV) in Israel and utilizes radar and electro-optical sensors for identification

and adaptive jamming systems to disrupt UAS flight and either shut it down (and crash) or return

it to the point of origin (Tomkins 2015).

Sense and avoid systems use radio frequency sensors and triangulate the signals to

determine the location of the drone and operator without interfering with authorized airport

activities. Once drone detection systems are in place, airports will need to use UAS to test the

systems on a regular basis. Unauthorized UAS not only cause a risk to aircraft but also threaten

airport efficiency, since airport shutdowns due to unauthorized UAS cause delay, inconvenience,

Page 16 of 36



Draft


and significant financial loss. The Dubai Airport (DXB) closed at least three times in 2016; a

ninety-minute closure on October 29 resulted in numerous diversions to other airports, and costs

were estimated to be $1 million a minute (Alkhalisi 2016). Although the breakdown of this cost

was not substantiated, other research documents costs to include those incurred by the airport,

airlines, passengers, shippers, aeronautical and non-aeronautical service providers, businesses,

and the community, as well as indirect costs for business interruptions (Delanghe 2013) and

delay to secondary airports. The high cost of airport closure reinforces the value of UAS if it can

increase the efficiency of operations and decrease the time required for closures for regular

activities.

Emergency Response

Emergency response includes incidents on the airfield and incidents elsewhere on airport

property including airport access roads. For a number of years, UAS has been proposed as a

means to provide rapid and accurate information to first responders, and as a tool to provide real-

time visual confirmation to the wide variety of stakeholders who participate in emergency

response activities (Ameri 2009). Regulation has historically limited the utilization of UAS in

emergencies(Karpowicz 2016), however, it is expected that UAS will be increasingly used in

emergency response activities in the future, providing situational awareness (Toscano 2014) and

enhancing response capabilities, including the potential to identify the location of injured

passengers, potentially reducing accidental death (Terwilliger 2015).

In Europe, efforts have already begun to provide training to emergency responders who

will begin by using UAS in emergency drills (Scott 2016). For both aviation and non-aviation

emergencies, emergency response is based on procedures, and successful utilization of UAS in

emergency response activities will require the development of UAS procedures that integrate

Page 17 of 36



Draft


smoothly with the procedures and activities of other responders. There are a number of activities

that can be undertaken to support integration of UAS into airport emergency response.

• Identify through case studies how a UAS could be incorporated into the Incident

Command System (ICS) that has been deployed during actual airport emergency

response activities.

• Document the specific benefits, capabilities and role within the ICS for UAS at non-

airport emergencies. For example, document the protocol for UAS video feed and other

information that supports response activities including information for stakeholders and

the public.

• Develop an Airport Emergency Plan (AEP) that incorporates UAS and defines the

specific tasks to be accomplished and the operating framework for UAS at a specific

airport.

• Integrate UAS into full scale drills conducted for compliance with Part 139.

Although application in airport emergencies has not been documented yet, UAS could enhance

the response capabilities of first responders at incidents such as the Asiana crash at San

Francisco International Airport (Terwilliger 2015). As proposed above, documentation of a case

study that specifies exactly how the UAS would have been used an emergency, how it would

integrate with the ICS, and how this would be reflected in the AEP is an exercise that would

illustrate both possible benefits and clarify integration with the emergency response team.

UAS are ideal in that they can potentially provide important information to emergency

responders, enhance situational awareness, and reduce risk to responders; potential limitations

include safety concerns operating where visibility is limited due to smoke, and the possibility

Page 18 of 36



Draft


that the UAS flight path would be over passengers who are exiting the aircraft during an

emergency.

The International Association of Fire Chiefs endorse the use of UAS to gather incident

information, for tactical planning and for observation of plans as they are executed, and notes

that the capabilities for thermal imaging, transmission of real-time data to incident command,

and the potential to reduce the exposure of personnel to dangerous environments (International

Association of Fire Chiefs 2014). In some cases, public safety agencies have utilized volunteer

hobbyists to provide UAS assistance in an emergency situation (Sullivan 2016) which has

benefits since the regulations for hobbyists are less stringent under Part 107, however, this is not

allowable at public airports due to the airspace restrictions.

Local and state enforcement agencies have acquired UAS for incident and emergency

response, natural disaster response, hazardous material accidents, accident reconstruction, photo

and video documentation, and search and rescue. Rural enforcement agencies also use UAS to

detect illegal crops. One local agency in Indiana with recreational lakes has practiced dropping

life vests using UAS during training exercises; this may be useful not only for airports that are

adjacent to large bodies of water, but also for airports with large detention and retention ponds

on the airport property.

Construction Activities

UAS are used for a variety of tasks in construction, including surveying and pre-

construction activities, (e.g., Lidar, 2D and 3D mapping and imaging), documentation of

earthwork quantities, documentation of construction progress and activities, inspections, and

aerial photographs and video for communication with owners, prospective clients and the public

(Kim 2016). UAS may also be a useful tool to support quality control and worker safety (Vlieg

Page 19 of 36



Draft


2015). UAS has been widely utilized in construction projects in the building, roadway and

offshore sectors, and could be utilized for a variety of construction projects at airports, including

airfield and terminal projects, as well as ground access road and transportation projects and

tenant construction projects. Large airports may include a variety of construction projects over

large areas of land. Denver Airport (DEN) has over 33,000 acres and Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW)

has over 17,000 acres with commercial, retail, office and industrial uses in addition to aviation

and airport support. To provide some appreciation for the size of land mass, consider that New

York’s Central Park is 843 acres, which is larger than many GA airports.

The risks and challenges identified for UAS on construction projects are amplified on

airport projects, and include the development of appropriate safety procedures, UAS flight plans,

safety for the surrounding areas, and adequate and affordable insurance coverage (Boudreau

2015). Additional considerations, namely approval for operation in Class B, C, D or E airspace,

and safe operation near aeronautical users without negatively impacting airfield capacity, are

also important considerations that would require resolution.

Challenges of Integrating UAS into Airport Activities and Potential Protocols

There is great potential to leverage the capabilities of UAS to improve airport safety and

facilitate operations and activities; however, there are a number of potential challenges to

implementation. Challenges include regulatory compliance, integration with existing airport

operations, development of protocol to ensure safety of aeronautical users and people on the

ground, and the development of policies for training, authorization and use, and privacy.

Regulatory Compliance and Airport Operations

Regulatory compliance reflects the need for compliance with both UAS regulations and

airport regulations. This discussion reflects the current status, with the caveat that since Part 107

Page 20 of 36



Draft


regulations are new, since technology is rapidly changing, and since there is a lot of UAS

activity, the policy may be expected to change and evolve. Although Part 107 provides for the

use of small UAS under a variety of circumstances with minimal regulation, one of the

regulations is the requirement for FAA permission to operate in class B, C, D or E airspace.

Thus airports with class B, C, D or E airspace (this includes all towered airports) would typically

operate under Part 107 with an airspace authorization and/or a waiver from FAA for permission

to operate in airspace outside the requirements of Part 107 (Federal Aviation Administration

2017). The FAA grants this permission with consideration of UAS facility maps (UASFM)

provided by the local air traffic control tower; these maps identify airspace constraints based on a

grid around each airport. Since the airport itself typically has an allowable height of zero for

UAS operation to reflect that UAS should not operate on or near an airport, prior to submitting a

request, an airport should coordinate with the local air traffic control tower and note this

coordination and approval on the application for a COW.

Airports that have an approved Section 333 exemption may continue to operate until

the expiration of their Certificate of Authorization (COA), although all new requests to FAA are

directed to Part 107 and associated waivers for authorization.

Part 107 does address operation near airports in Chapter 5.8 (Federal Aviation

Administration, 2016b). UAS operations require authorization, and although UAS operations are

not subject to Part 91, the communication and coordination with ATC would be similar to the

requirements for Part 91 (Federal Aviation Administration 2016b). Furthermore, the remote PIC

must be aware of all traffic and approach patterns, and avoid operation that may interfere with

aircraft, yielding to all other aircraft (Federal Aviation Administration 2016b).

Page 21 of 36



Draft


Communication regarding UAS activities is important not only with ATC but also with

other airport users. Just as airport vehicles require special and conspicuous marking and lights

(Federal Aviation Administration 2010), and construction vehicles require use of a checkered

orange and white flag, perhaps UAS should be clearly marked with an airport logo or similar

designation to indicate that their presence in the airport is authorized. Providing appropriate

information to airport employees, and potentially to airport passengers who may see a UAS, will

assure that authorized UAS do not cause undue alarm, and facilitate prompt reporting of

unauthorized UAS.

Regulatory compliance with respect to airport regulations will require that the UAS be

integrated into the Airport Certification Manual (ACM) for airports certified under Part 139.

This would include documentation of the UAS protocol for any activity or component of the

ACM, such as regular inspections, training requirements, and the AEP. This would also require

that existing airport protocols be modified to reflect the use of UAS on the airport (e.g.,

administratively identify responsibilities for licensure of UAS, pilots, crew and authorized users).

Detailed protocols can be developed for regular activities, with refinement as UAS capabilities

and operational activities change and/or expand.

UAS activities at non-towered airports with Class G airspace (including airports with no

instrument approach) can be conducted without additional authorization or air traffic control

notification. This provision allows many GA airports to use UAS for airport operations

relatively unencumbered. Although there are no formal requirements, it would be appropriate to

issue a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) and monitor the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF)

when UAS are in use at the airport. GA airports in Class G airspace may be the best place to

advance and refine the use of UAS for airport operations, both due to simplification in terms of

Page 22 of 36



Draft


FAA authorization, and due to the lower likelihood of interference with manned aircraft, due to

lower operational volume. Most of the UAS used for airport management activities would not

require the runway for take-offs and landings, but would require runway closure when activities

center on the runway (e.g., pavement inspection or FOD inspection).

The challenges related to airspace restrictions suggests that the exploration of other

autonomous systems for use at airports may be warranted. Pavement, perimeter inspections and

other Part 139 inspections could potentially be conducted by UGS, and UWS may be appropriate

for wildlife management activities, such as waterfowl hazing, and for waterside inspections and

surveillance for airports that abut bodies of water. While functionally there are opportunities to

leverage UGS and UWS at airports, the prevalence of UAS makes them attractive from the

perspective of widespread availability, proven capabilities, and relatively low cost.

Safety Protocol

Even if not required by FAA (e.g., at a Class G airport or a private airport or an airport

not certified under Part 139), it is important and necessary for the airport to develop and

document protocol for safe operations, reporting requirements, equipment malfunctions

(including lost link events), incident and near miss reporting, NOTAM authorization,

coordination requirements, communications requirements, and emergency procedures.

Each component of a UAS program entails additional clarification. For example,

development of an operating manual for UAS on airport property might include the following

components and documentation requirements (Stephens 2016).

• UAS airworthiness statement for all UAS registered for use at the airport,

• Maintenance procedures and maintenance record keeping requirements,

• Flight ops manual that outlines UAS activities and procedures,

Page 23 of 36



Draft


• Pilot ops manual that defines UAS remote pilot in command (PIC) qualifications and

record keeping requirements (many airports require a private pilot license, although this

is not mandated by Part 107),

• Crew requirements and record keeping requirements covering both visual observer and

operator,

• Training manual that provides training requirements and information specific to the

airport,

• UAS operational area maps for different UAS activities (e.g., perimeter security, runway

inspections, construction, landside activities, etc.)

UAS operational area maps would vary depending on the specific task or activity. It may be

appropriate to document the boundaries for UAS operational maps in a formalized letter of

agreement between the airport operator, airport traffic control tower, tenants, and other affected

users, just as the movement area boundaries are documented in a letter of agreement between the

airport operator and airport traffic control tower.

Pilot qualifications and UAS requirements would likely be consistent for all airport

applications, and it may be useful to develop a single airport template with checklists and

inspection forms, including pre-flight and post-flight checks (Brewster 2016), and activity logs.

Although a private pilot license was often required for COA granted under Section 333

exemptions, the Part 107 remote PIC licensure may be the most logical minimum requirement.

Additional airport specific requirements would be expected and may include familiarity with the

airport layout and operating protocols during regular operations (e.g., communications and

operational restrictions) and emergency operations (ICS and AEP). Airports may also require

additional documentation (e.g., hours of experience) or testing to demonstrate UAS operator

Page 24 of 36



Draft


competency, since there is no flight check required for licensure of the remote PIC or operator

through Part 107.

As airports develop Safety Management Systems, it will be logical to include UAS,

which will not only include risk assessment and mitigation for possible UAS hazards, but also

facilitate integration between UAS and other airport activities. In any case, the development of

protocols to ensure safety is the top priority and precedes any other operational benefits. If

operations are conducted under Part 107, operations must reflect all regulations including

approval from air traffic control, not flying over people who are not participating in the UAS

activity, maintaining visual line of sight, and operating during daylight hours only. Safety

considerations while operating in the airport environment must also incorporate protocols to

assure the safety of aeronautical users. In some cases, such as perimeter fence inspections on

large airports, it is possible that activities could be conducted without interfering with

aeronautical activities. In other cases, such as runway pavement inspections and obstacle

mapping for Part 77, exclusive use of the runway is required, and air traffic would be interrupted.

In the case of runway pavement inspections, these activities are already being conducted and the

use of UAS rather than conventional ground vehicles would not introduce any new disruption to

aeronautical activities.

UAS safety protocol must also include lost link procedures to assure that the UAS does

not interfere with other traffic. Lost link procedures typically vary depending on the UAS, as

well as the activity and the location of the activity, and include flight termination points.

Possible actions for lost link may include remaining in place, returning to base, landing

immediately in nearest safe location, or lowering altitude. The most appropriate action would

vary, depending on the location of the UAS at the time of the lost link. At an airport, the first

Page 25 of 36



Draft


priority is assuring that there is not interference with air traffic. Recognizing the importance of

this topic, FAA has included UAS lost link procedures in their air traffic control policy (Federal

Aviation Administration 2016c). Although automatic recovery with safe landing following a lost

link is generally predictable and safe, the consequences of any failure become dramatic at an

airport. For this reason, many airports may choose to integrate UAS carefully, with initial

applications in areas farther from the runway (e.g., perimeter checks), at lower altitudes, and

during times when air traffic is minimal and runways can be temporarily closed for UAS

activities (e.g., inspections).

Privacy Considerations

Privacy considerations are especially important and any UAS activity that that collects

video or photographs must include a framework to assure privacy considerations are met. The

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has developed voluntary

best practices that include the following (National Telecommunications and Information

Administration).

• Limit the collection of covered data; covered data includes any data with identification of

specific people.

• Inform other stakeholders when UAS will be used to collect data and what kind of data

will be collected.

• Avoid collecting covered and sensitive data when people have a general expectation of

privacy.

• Do not retain covered and sensitive data longer than necessary.

• Limit sharing of covered and sensitive data.

• Develop reasonable protocol for securing covered and sensitive data.

Page 26 of 36



Draft


Video and photographs may unintentionally document activities pertinent to worker safety,

material storage conditions, and other regulated activities, as well as the presence of people both

on the airport property and near the airport property, in the case of perimeter inspections.

Privacy protocols currently used for airport video cameras may provide one frame of reference

for consideration.

Economic Considerations

In some cases, the justification for using a UAS to support airport activities must address

not only functional capabilities, but also economic justification. It is challenging to address this

issue since UAS capabilities continue to increase and since costs are generally decreasing.

Moreover, it takes more than equipment to make a system work. Consider the example of

obstacle mapping, which has been accomplished with a $50,000 fixed wing aircraft and GIS

system. This cost would be less than the cost to hire an fixed wing aircraft and pilot to do the

same task. This cost estimate does not, however, reflect the expertise needed to execute the

project, which includes not only operating the UAS, and having a license under Part 107, but

also managing the resulting data, developing the required safety protocols, and administering a

system that would be eligible for the required waiver to operate on an airport. Although some

agencies work with FAA directly, other agencies have hired attorneys to assist with the

development of procedures required for an exemption to operate in airspace outside the

requirements of Part 107 and during nighttime conditions, which is advantageous not only for

security and emergency response, but also for routine inspections during night conditions, such

as for airfield light inspections. Since many airports have limited flight activity at night, night

operations with a well-lit UAS might provide a lower-risk environment for testing and

demonstrating UAS capabilities at both larger airports as well as unregulated airfields. Reduced

Page 27 of 36



Draft


risk due to reduced aircraft operations may translate to lower insurance costs. Insurance costs

associated with the operation of UAS would vary widely depending on the airport characteristics

and the proposed use of UAS.

It is notable that the advantages are not just economic, but in some cases functional. A

UAS may allow the airport operator to do things better than they were done before. The

capability to reduce the danger of wildlife by using UAS, the capability to have enhanced

documentation through video collected by UAS, and the capability to increase surveillance and

deter a security breach are all examples of the benefits of UAS that are very real, but also very

difficult to quantify in terms of economic assessment.

Conclusions

The capabilities and applications of UAS are rapidly expanding and it is logical that they

may soon become an important tool to facilitate safe operations at airports. Although there are

regulatory, safety, and privacy considerations that must be addressed, these factors should not be

an impediment to deployment. UAS provide an opportunity to enhance many existing activities

due to their capability for photo documentation and geocoding. Applications for UAS include

not only obstacle mapping and surveying, pavement assessment, wildlife management, security

and construction activities but also runway friction testing, and the assessment and reporting of

runway conditions during and following snow and ice events. The expanded use and

applications of UAS that will occur under Part 107 will likely spur innovation and advancements

in UAS technologies, and will result in more robust technologies that may be utilized at airports.

As UAS are implemented, it will be valuable to document case studies and develop best practices

to best leverage this technology and facilitate integration at airports.

Page 28 of 36



Draft


References

Airsight. 2016. Paris Charles De Gaulle Airport - runway pavement inspections using airsight drone. Available from https://www.airsight.de/en/news/item/385-paris-charles-de-gaulle-airport-runway-pavement-inspections-using-airsight-drone.html [accessed 21 November 2016].

Airsight. n.d. NextGen airfield inspections. Available from https://www.airsight.de/documents/airsight-uav-pavement-inspections-en-web.pdf [accessed 10 August 2016].

Alkhalisi, Z. 2016. Dubai deploys a 'drone hunter' to keep its airport open. CNN Tech. Available from http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/technology/dubai-airport-drone-hunter/index.html [accessed 25 November 2016].

Ameri, B.D. 2009. UAS applications: disaster & emergency management. In Proceedings of the ASPRS 2009 Annual Conference, 9-13 March 2009. Baltimore, MD. Available from http://www.asprs.org/a/publications/proceedings/baltimore09/0007.pdf [accessed 10 August 2016].

Asphalt Institute. 2016. Asphalt pavement distress summary. Available from http://www.asphaltinstitute.org/asphalt-pavement-distress-summary/ [accessed 10 August 2016].

ASTM. 2012. D5340-12 standard test method for airport pavement condition surveys. Annual book of ASTM standard. doi: https://doi.org/10.1520/D5340-12.

Beake, N. 2015. London airport police to use surveillance drones. BBC News. Available from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-32431630 [accessed 21 November 2016].

Begier, M. J. 2014. Strike, snarge and safety - reporting wildlife strikes to aviation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Airports Conference, 5 March 2014. Hershey, PA. Available from http://airports.outreach.psu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/reportingwildlifestrikes.pdf [accessed 17 August 2016].

Bird, D. M. 2014. Unmanned vehicle systems and wildlife management in the 21st century. RSPB. Available from https://www.exeter.ac.uk/media/universityofexeter/esi/documents/uavmeetingpapers/D._Bird,_RSPB,_July_2014.pdf [accessed 10 August 2016].

Page 29 of 36



Draft


Bischoff, L.A. 2016. State approves $1.5M for springfield airport drone research. Springfield News-Sun. Available from http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/business/economy/state-approves-15m-for-springfield-airport-drone-r/ntJ5N/ [accessed 6 December 2016].

Borener, S.S. 2015. Modeling emergent risks in complex airspace: UAS operations in a metroplex environment. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/AIAA 34th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), 13-17 September 2015. Prague, Czech Republic. pp.5B3-1–5B3-13. Available from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7311428 [accessed 10 August 2016].

Boudreau, T. 2015. Six questions to ask yourself before using drones on your construction site. ENR. 275(8): 24–25.

Brand, M., Key, G., Nohara, J., Beason, R., Herricks, E., King, R., and Doture, C. 2011. Integration and Validation of Avian Radars (IVAR). ESTCP. RC-200723. Available from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a555979.pdf [accessed 2 May 2017].

Brewster, N. 2016. Southern Illinois Airport to use drones for management and inspections. Southern Illinoisan. Available from http://thesouthern.com/news/local/communities/murphysboro/southern-illinois-airport-to-use-drones-for-management-and-inspections/article_afa7eec1-7495-509b-b1a3-dcc9847e76dc.html [accessed 10 August 2016].

Carter, N. B. 2016. Preventing the next 'Miracle on the Hudson'. Int. Airport Rev. Available from http://www.internationalairportreview.com/18699/airport-extra/preventing-next-miracle-hudson/ [accessed 7 December 2016].

Century West Engineering Corporation. 2015. Eastern Oregon Regional Airport Master Plan, Chapter 4 (Draft). Pendleton, Oregon. Available from http://www.centurywest.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Pendleton-AMP-CH-4_Draft-10.11.pdf [accessed 12 August 2016].

Chabot, D., and Bird, D.M. 2015. Wildlife research and management methods in the 21st century: Where do unmanned aircraft fit in? J. Unmanned Veh. Sys. 3(4): 137-155. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1139/juvs-2015-0021.

DeLanghe, K.S. 2013. Economic effects and costs of a temporary shutdown of an airport - review and case study. In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Transportation Research Society. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Available from http://www.wctrs.leeds.ac.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/abstracts/rio/general/1621.pdf [accessed 25 November 2016].

Page 30 of 36



Draft


DJI. 2016. Phantom comparison. Available from http://www.dji.com/products/compare-phantom [accessed 21 November 2016].

Dolbeer, R., Wright, S., Weller, J., and Begier, M. 2015. Wildlife strikes to civil aircraft in the United States, 1990 - 2014. FAA. Available from http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife/media/Wildlife-Strike-Report-1990-2014.pdf [accessed 17 August 2016].

Dolbeer, R., Wright, S., Weller, J., and Begier, M. 2012. Wildlife strikes to civil aircraft in the United States 1990–2010. FAA. Available from http://www.xsightsys.com/uploadimages/Wildlife%20strikes%201990-2009.pdf [accessed 17 August 2016].

Federal Aviation Administration. 2004. Airport safety self-inspection. US DOT. Available from https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/advisory_circular/150-5200-18C/150_5200_18C.pdf [accessed 7 December 2016].

Federal Aviation Administration. 2006. Airport obstacle analysis, AC 120-91. US DOT. Available from https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC120-91.pdf [accessed 7 December 2016].

Federal Aviation Administration. 2009a. Airport Foreign Object Debris (FOD), AC 150/5220-24. US DOT. Available from https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150_5220_24.pdf [accessed 7 December 2016].

Federal Aviation Administration. 2009b. General guidance and specifications for submission of aeronautical surveys to NGS: field data collection and geographic informaiton system (GIS) standards. US DOT. Available from: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150-5300-18B-chg1-consolidated.pdf.

Federal Aviation Administration. 2010. Painting, marking and lighting of vehicles used on an airport, AC 150/5210-5D. US DOT. Available from https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150_5210_5d.pdf [accessed 4 May 2016].

Federal Aviation Administration. 2011. Standards for using remote sensing technologies in airport surveys, AC 150/5300-17C. US DOT. Available from https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150_5300_17c.pdf [accessed 7 December 2016].

Page 31 of 36



Draft


Federal Aviation Administration. 2014a. Airport pavement management program (PMP), AC 150/5380-7B. US DOT. Available from https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150-5380-7B.pdf [accessed 25 November 2016].

Federal Aviation Administration. 2014b. Maintenance of airport visual aid facilities, AC 150/5340-26C. US DOT. Available from https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/150-5340-26c.pdf [accessed 3 May 2017].

Federal Aviation Administration. 2015. N JO 7210.889: Unmanned aircraft pperations in the national airspace system (NAS). US DOT. Available from https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_JO_7210.889_Unmanned_Aircraft_Operations_in_the_NAS.pdf [accessed 10 August 2016].

Federal Aviation Administration. 2016a. AC 107-2 Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS). US DOT. Available from https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/AC_107-2_AFS-1_Signed.pdf [accessed 4 May 2017].

Federal Aviation Administration. 2016b. Press Release – DOT and FAA finalize rules 274 for small UAS. US DOT. Available from https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=20515 [accessed 2 July 2016].

Federal Aviation Administration 2016c. Noitce: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) lost link. US DOT. Available from https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_JO_7110.724_5-2-9_UAS_Lost_Link_2.pdf [accessed 3 May 2017].

Federal Aviation Administration. 2017. Request a waiver/airspace authorization. US DOT. Available from https://www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver/ [accessed 3 may 2017].

Florida Department of Transportation. n.d. Airfield pavement management program background. Available from http://www.fdot.gov/aviation/pavement_background.shtm [accessed 25 November 2016].

Garvey, W. 2016. Airborne surveyor: a tiny, winged tool to help keep airplanes out of trees. Aviat. Week Space Tec. 178(20): 14. Available from http://awin.aviationweek.com/ArticlesStory/tabid/975/Status/IPAddress/id/f7f0d5f5-b016-4dad-9190-9d8b8df61955/Default.aspx [accessed 25 November 2016].

Page 32 of 36



Draft


GIS Cloud. 2016. The challenges of Drone Mapping. ENP Newswire.

GPS World. 2015. SkyTracker launched to thward drone threats in protected airspace. Available from http://gpsworld.com/skytracker-launched-to-thwart-drone-threats-in-protected-airspace/ [accessed 10 August 2016].

Greenwood, T. 2015. State police gets OK to Use Drones in Investigations. Detroit News. Available from http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/michigan/2015/03/09/michigan-state-police-gets-ok-use-drone/24654161/ [accessed 25 November 2016].

Heymsfield, E., and Kuss, M. 2014. Implementing GigaPan technology into an airport’s foreign object debris management program. Trans. Res. Rec. 2336: 55-62. doi:10.3141/2336-07.

International Association of Fire Chiefs. 2014. IAFC position: use of unmanned aerial vehicles in public safety emergency response. Available from http://www.iafc.org/IAFC-position-Use-of-Unmanned-Aerial-Vehicles-In-Emergency-Response [accessed 11 August 2016].

Karpowicz, J. 2016. UAVs for law enforcement, first response & search and rescue (SAR). Comm. UAV Expo. Available from http://expouav.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/free-report-uavs-for-search-and-rescue.pdf?_ga=1.203618320.1457496562.1470944392 [accessed 11 August 2016].

Kim, S., Irizarry, J., and Costa, D.B. 2016. Potential factors influencing the performance of Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) integrated safety control for construction worksites. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2016, 31 May – 2 June, 2016, San Juan, Puerto Rico. pp. 2614-2623.

Koch, C.G. 2015. A review on cumputer vision based defect detecion and condition assessment of concrete and asphalt civil infrastructure. Adv. Eng. Inform. 29(2): 196-210.

Leswing, K. 2015. Why your drone can't fly near airports anymore. Fortune. Available from http://fortune.com/2015/11/18/dji-geofencing-airport/ [accessed 10 August 2016].

Linchant, J., Lisein, J., Semeki, J., Lejeune, P., and Vermeulen, C. 2015. Are Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) the future of wildlife monitoring? A review of accomplishments and challenges. Mammal Rev. 45(4): 239–252.

Page 33 of 36



Draft


Lynch, M. 2016. FAA, DHS test drone detection technology at Denver Airport. 21st Century State and Local. Available from https://www.21centurystate.com/articles/faa-dhs-test-drone-detection-technology-at-denver-airport/ [accessed 25 November 2016].

Maddox, M.S. 2015. Drones in the US national airspace system: a safety and security assessment. Natl. Sec. J. Available from http://harvardnsj.org/2015/02/drones-in-the-u-s-national-airspace-system-a-safety-and-security-assessment/ [accessed 10 August 2016].

Marsh, R. 2016. Government watchdog: TSA falling short in oversight of airport perimeter security. CNN Politics. Available from http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/politics/tsa-airport-security-deficient/ [accessed 10 August 2016].

Marsh, R., and Patterson, T. 2016. SkyTracker rougue drone detector test 'successful'. CNN. Available from http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/rogue-drone-detector-technology/index.html [accessed 25 November 2016].

Miller, J.S. 2003. Distress identification manual for the long-term pavement performance program. McLean: FHWA. FHWA-RD-03-031. Available from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/ltpp/reports/03031/03031.pdf [accessed 10 August 2016].

National Telecommunications and Information Administration. n.d. Voluntary best practices for UAS privacy, transparency, and accountability. Available from https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/voluntary_best_practices_for_uas_privacy_transparency_and_accountability_0.pdf [accessed 23 August 2016].

Neubauer, K.D. 2015. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) at airports: a primer. TRB. ACRP Report 144.

O'Neil-Dunne, J. 2015. Image boost, drones produce sharper pictures for mapping. Roads & Bridges. 53(9): 30-32.

Oppmann, P. 2009. Airport uses radar, noise to prevent bird strikes. CNN. Available from http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/02/11/seattle.bird.radar/index.html?_s=PM:TECH [accessed 2 May 2017].

Ozturk, S., and Kuzucuoglu, A.E. 2016. A multi-robot coordination approach for autonomous runway Foreign Object Debris (FOD) clearance. Robot. Auton. Syst. 75(Part B): 244−259. Available from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921889015002171 [accessed 7 December 2016].

Page 34 of 36



Draft


Park, C. a.-T. 2013. Effects of UAS-Specific capacity constraints on delays and aircraft encounters. In Proceedings of the 2013 AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration and Operations Conference, 12−14 August 2013, Los Angeles, California. Available from http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2013-4240 [accessed 10 August 2016].

Schnebele, E.T. 2015. Review of remote sensing methodologies for pavement management and assessment. Euro. Trans. Res. Rev. 7(7). doi:10.1007/s12544-015-0156-6.

Scott, M. 2016. Europe's emergency workers turn to drones to save lives. New York Times. Available from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/technology/europe-emergency-drones.html?src=me&module=Slide&region=SlideShowTopBar&version=SlideCard-1&action=Click&contentCollection=Technology&slideshowTitle=Learning%20to%20Fly%20Drones%20to%20Help%20in%20Emergencies&c [accessed 11 August 2016].

senseFly. n.d. Drones for surveying. Available from https://www.sensefly.com/applications/surveying.html [accessed 7 December 2016].

Siebert, S., and Teizer, J. 2014. Mobile 3D mapping for surveying earthwork projects using an

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) system. Automation in Construction. 41: 1−14. Available from doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.01.004 [accessed 7 December 2016].

South Carolina Aeronautics Commission Recognized with Most Innovative State Award. 2016. State Aviat. J. NASAO Special Edition: 34-37.

Stephens, J., and Baker, M.R. 2016. Why public Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) enhance the airport environment. Available from http://airports.outreach.psu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/whypublicunmannedaircraftsystems.pdf [accessed 10 August 2016].

Sullivan, K. 2016. Citizen’s drone spots missing teacher; now sheriff’s office wants one. Available from http://wlfi.us/2016/06/22/citizens-drone-spots-missing-teacher-now-sheriffs-office-wants-one/ [accessed 10 August 2016].

Terwilliger, B.D. 2015. Influencing factors for use of unmanned aerial systems in support of aviation accident and emergency response. J. Automat. Contr. Eng. 3(3): 246−252. doi:10.12720/joace.3.3.246-252.

Tomkins, R. (2015, October 23). New Israeli anti-drone counter-measure makes debut. United Press Int. Available from http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2015/10/23/New-Israeli-anti-drone-counter-measure-makes-debut/4461445628183/ [accessed 7 December 2016].

Page 35 of 36



Draft


Toscano, M. 2014. How UAS can improve airport management. Airport Magazine. Available from http://www.airportmagazine-digital.com/airportmagazine/december_january_2013_2014?pg=1#pg1 [accessed 10 August 2016].

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. 2015. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Available from https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/laws-legislations/migratory-bird-treaty-act.php [accessed 5 May 2017].

Unmanned Systems Technology. 2016. Aeryon SkyRanger sUAS utilized for aerial intelligence during summer olympics. Available from http://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/2016/10/aeryon-skyranger-suas-utilized-for-aerial-intelligence-during-summer-olympics/ [accessed 21 November 2016].

US Government Accountability Office. 2016. Airport perimeter and access control security would benefit from risk assessment and strategy updates. Available from http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/677586.pdf [accessed 10 August 2016].

Vlieg, L.E. 2015. Drones take flight despite uncertain regs. ENR. 275(12).

Wisely, J. 2015. FAA OKs Michigan State Police aerial drone use. Detroit Free Press. Available from http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/03/09/drone-michigan-state-police-faa/24659777/ [accessed 21 November 2016].

Worrells, D.S. 2015. Unmanned aerial systems and airport master plans. ERAU - Worldwide Available from http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1141&context=aircon [accessed 10 August 2016].

Page 36 of 36



uas to support airport safety and - university of toronto ... · uas to support airport safety and...

Documents