Activity 9.5 Case Analysis Effectivness

Activity 9.5 Case Analysis Effectiveness

I think that the case analysis was very effective in facilitating deeper research and understanding of unmanned systems by the students as well as getting a better idea about the challenges ahead.  While the class was very thorough and covered a wide range of topics nothing helps the learning process and the expansion of knowledge as much as research.  Searching and sifting through the vast amount of information available to us today opens you up to finding information and stories that you never would have thought to look for.  In this aspect I think the case analysis excelled in its purpose.

This tool also helped to develop more analytical thinking about the problems faced by unmanned systems and made us more aware of opposing or just different viewpoints on these issues as well as UAS themselves.  This type of decision making is can be very relevant to my line of work as a UAS flight instructor.  Because this is such a new and growing industry with many challenges facing it now and in the future good decision making will be crucial. A case analysis provides the ability to have well thought out and logical reasoning about and issue and puts it in a package to present to others for review and consideration.  I don’t think there are many areas that this type of paper and problem solving would not be applicable. A recent example that would this type of research would have been applicable would be when I was working on finding a way to improve the process for updating our lesson plans.  We used Six Sigma practices for this at the time but this process of researching and presenting a case analysis would have been just as effective.  Another example would be using a case analysis to show some safety of flight issues that we have because of inexperienced personnel being put in decision making positions.  A case analysis could be used to show them what the problem is and how to fix it in a logical and subjective manner.

I don’t really see any way to improve the process for an online class. Of course in actual classroom environment more collaboration between students and more frequent feedback would be very helpful for this process.  For this class I think it was done as well as it possibly could be.

Activity 7.4 Request for Proposal

This will be a request for proposal of a quadcopter system used for disaster search and rescue applications.  This will be for a small man portable system appropriate for searching in remote areas with minimal support equipment.  The goal will be to select a COTS (Commercial Off the Shelf) system as well as a COTS payload that can be easily integrated into the quadcopter platform.  By using a COTS system this reduce development and testing time (less than 6 months) providing a proven platform for this application.

Base Requirements

·       Transportability

o   Entire System (all components) will be transportable (in ruggedized case) and weigh less than 50 lbs (one person lift)

o   Entire system (all components) will be transportable in padded backpack for field use

o   Control Station shall be tablet (ruggedized) for field use

·       Air Vehicle

o   Shall be capable of flight up to 500 feet altitude above ground level (AGL)

o   Shall be capable of sustained flight for a minimum of 45 minutes

o   Shall be capable of operational radius of at least 1 kilometer mile

o   Shall be autonomously controlled via ruggedized tablet control station

o   Shall be deployable (from either case or backpack) and over mission area in less than 15 minutes.

o   Shall provide real time telemetry information to operator via ruggedized tablet including altitude, magnetic heading, latitude/longitude or MGRS (Military Grid Reference System) position, and orientation (roll, pitch, and yaw)

o   Shall provide near real time payload video to ruggedized tablet control station

o   Shall provide capability to hover over target of interest

o   Shall provide power to payload, telemetry sensors,  and data-link

·       Payload

o   Shall be capable of color daytime video (EO) operation up to 500 feet AGL

o   Shall be capable of infrared (IR) video operation up to 500 feet AGL

o   Shall provide target location coordinates (MGRS, Lat/Long, etc.)

o   Shall be at least 2 axis gimbal stabilized

o   Shall be interoperable  with C2 and data-link

o   Shall use power provided by air vehicle element

(Terwilliger, Burgess, & Hernandez, 2013)

For this system I would look at getting a COTS (Commercial Off the Shelf) system that would require little actual development other than slight modifications and validation that the system is capable of meeting the mission requirements.  For this reason I would use an unstructured of ad hoc development process.  I would use the following testing strategies:

1)     Concept Design

2)     Concept Research (COTS)

3)     Subsystem Testing

4)      Integration Testing

5)     Test Site Selection

6)     Flight Test

7)     Certification

8)     Support

Because this will be a COTS system with only minimal payload selection and integrations this process should take no longer than 4-6 months.

 

I have decided on COTS quadcopter system because they are usually modular in nature with excellent payload capability.  This type of system is also very well suited to this application because it can hover and provide a stable platform with a 360 degree view for the payload.  This capability will provide rapid search of difficult or inaccessible terrain.

 

By using a COTS system this will ensure the system is available for use as quickly as possible and will ideally already be proven with previous operational use.  This will also keep costs down and making this system available to search and rescue units of all sizes and budgets.  This will also eliminate production problems related to setting up a new facility and the associated development and production delays.

 

 

1.     References

Centers for Medicare and Medicaide Services. (2008). Selecting a Development Approach (). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Terwilliger, B., Burgess, S., & Hernandez, D. (2013). Module 7 System Development and Test & Evaluation (T&E) [Lecture notes]. Retrieved from https://erau.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-14471009-dt-content-rid-80602595_4/institution/Worldwide_Online/ASCI_GR_Courses/ASCI_530/Module_Lectures/ASCI_530_Module_7_Lecture.pdf

Torun, E. (1999). UAV Requirements and Design Consideration. Retrieved from NATO Public: http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFulltext/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-044///MP-044-B04.pdf

Search and Rescue UAVs

Search and Rescue UAVs

UAS are very well suited to the Search and Rescue mission.  The availability of small but highly capable UAV systems will make this job much safer for the rescuers and potentially make it much easier and faster to find the victim possibly saving more lives. “UAS can provide situational awareness over a large area quickly, reducing the time and the number of searchers required to locate and rescue an injured or lost person, greatly reducing the cost of search and rescue missions. They can be the first eyes in the sky – immediately after an incident, letting first responders know precisely where to direct resources. The possibilities for helping ensure public safety are endless.”("AV," 2014, p. 1)

For this type of mission small, man portable systems would be most useful.  This would allow rescuers to carry the system with them and deploy it as need and be able to self-recover the UAV for later use.  The Raven B DDL UAS by AeroVironment would be an ideal system for this type of application.  It is small, light (4.8 lbs.), and launched by hand making this system easily packed into and used in difficult terrain as demonstrated by the military in Afghanistan and Iraq. A UAV that is particularly suited to Search and Rescue missions would the quadcopter type UAS.  Many of these systems are available as RC class aircraft to much more sophisticated systems such as the AeroVironment’s Qube quadcopter.  “With its impressive 40-minute flight endurance, built-in safety features and intuitive user interface, Qube provides the ability to make command decisions without putting humans in harm’s way. Qube is the ideal solution for missions where time is short and risk is high protecting lives and property.”("Qube," 2014, p. 1)  The Mesa County Arizona Sheriff’s Department has been using a small unmanned helicopter and a hand launched fixed wing UAV since 2010. This has provided the department with a lot of capability for a fraction of the cost of a manned helicopter traditionally used in Search and Rescue. “The direct operational cost, including replacement parts and electricity to charge the drones, totals $3.36 an hour.”(Ban, 2012, p. 1)

UAVs provide the capability for very small law enforcement departments, civilian organizations, and even volunteer units the ability to have capabilities that were very limited and only available to the largest departments in the past. There are challenges however, the largest being getting permission from the FAA to fly these aircraft.  During the 2013 flooding in Colorado a small UAV manufacturer volunteered to use it UAV to help search for survivors when manned military aircraft were not able to fly and were told to cease operations by the FAA.  Many of the UAV systems used for this type of application are small RC type aircraft and the NTSB has recently ruled that the FAA does not have jurisdiction over this class of aircraft which could open the door for more of these operations to start flying.  There is also significant reluctance in the population for the use of UAVs by law enforcement and other civil organizations over fears of privacy violations.  While most of these fears are unfounded and are born of ignorance they do however represent a significant hurdle to future operations.

While UAVs will have many civil applications I feel that Search and Rescue will be one of the first civil missions that UAVs will be used in.  The fact that most of these missions will take place over unpopulated or sparsely populated areas will make it easier to obtain FAA permission to fly in the NAS.  Also this mission is more palatable to the public than general law enforcement use and as stated they generally use smaller man portable or RC class systems that will most likely be the first cleared to fly in the NAS.

References

AeroVironment Qube UAS. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.avinc.com/public-safety/qube

AeroVironment Raven UAS. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.avinc.com/public-safety/solution/raven-uas

AeroVironment Search and Rescue. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.avinc.com/public-safety/applications/searchandrescue

Ban, C. (2012). Drones assist county sheriffs’ search and rescue missions. Retrieved from http://www.naco.org/newsroom/countynews/Current%20Issue/5-21-2012/Pages/Dronesassistcountysheriffs%E2%80%99searchandrescuemissions.aspx

Activity 4.4

Separation of unmanned aircraft or See and Avoid capability is a crucial link in allowing routine use of Civil and Military UAS in the National Airspace (NAS).  While UAS have better situational awareness of their exact location at any given time than most manned aircraft their lack of ability to see and avoid other aircraft in real time is a major hurdle needs to be overcome.(Integration, 2013)  Currently there are two systems under development to help alleviate this problem.  General Atomic s is developing an air based sense and avoid system while the U.S. Army is developing a ground based sense and avoid system.  Manned systems have systems to assist with issue as well while flying in IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) such as TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System), ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast), and Mode 4 transponder.

The U.S. Army has chosen a GSAA (Ground Based Sense and Avoid) system to avoid increasing electrical loads and increasing aircraft weight.  This is definitely a benefit for smaller systems such as the RQ-7 Shadow and MQ-5 Hunter.  This system is capable of use with SUAS systems such as the Raven and WASP AE but will generally not be needed sense these systems are flown within sight of the operator.  This system has been successfully tested by the Army and FAA and will went into service starting in March 2014. (Lee, 2014)

The General Atomics air based SAA (Sense and Avoid) system is completely on the aircraft and consists of a radar (Due Regard), transponder (ADS-B), and traffic alert (TCAS) system.  The DRR (Due Regard Radar) will be able to actively track all other aircraft in the area even if the other aircraft does not have a transponder or any electrical systems at all. The ADS-B system in the transponder sends GPS location information of the aircraft to all other aircraft in the area.  The TCAS works with the transponder as well to give traffic collision and proximity warnings.  This system has had successful tests completed late last year and will continue testing to get full approval from the FAA. ("General Atomics," 2014)

Each of these systems has strengths and weaknesses as well as platform suitability issues but with the availability of both systems this will allow manufacturers and users to choose which system is the best option for their platform.

References

Breakthrough Testing at General Atomics. (2014). Retrieved from http://uavjobsreport.com/breakthrough-testing-at-general-atomics/

Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) Roadmap [FAA Publication]. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/uas_roadmap_2013.pdf

Lee, C. (2014). US Army to install ground-based UAV radar at five sites by 2016. Retrieved from http://www.janes.com/article/32294/us-army-to-install-ground-based-uav-radar-at-five-sites-by-2016

Activity 2.4

In this situation as the systems engineer I would go to both teams and talk to them about their limitations and if necessary how they could reduce weight without reducing performance.  I would speak to each team about their decision making and make it clear to them that meeting customer demands and the performance that has already been promised is the number one goal. I would also state that cutting the safety margin is not an option. Using UAS for commercial purposes is an emerging field and one of the main concerns is UAS safety. If safety margins are cut to save a little time or money now and an accident occurs that causes property damage or injury or death to a person then the whole program will be shut down. Worse, UAS development and regulatory resolutions will most likely be put on a lengthy hold.

With these considerations in mind I would make it clear that reducing performance as previously promised is not an option. In this case I would focus on customizing the Guidance, Navigation, and Control systems to reduce weight. I would also pursue any possibility in modifying the payload system to reduce weight as long as it did not affect performance. I would tell both teams that reducing fuel load and therefore safety margin is not an option. I would then work with both teams to help solve their issues.

A major learning point from this would be finding a better way to make a new improved version of the system. This will allow us to know through experience what can be used from “off the shelf” components and what needs to be custom made for the system. Since this is an emerging field customer satisfaction and customer loyalty will be of paramount importance. As the old saying goes, you only get one first impression. If performance promises are not met or safety is compromised customers will not return for future products. Hopefully by using these lessons learned the newer model will be able to not only meet requirements but significantly exceed them. (Terwilliger, Burgess, & Hernandez, 2013)

 

References

Terwilliger, B., Burgess, S., & Hernandez, D. (2013). Module 2: Global System Design Concepts, Requirements, and Specifications Overview [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Blackboard website: https://erau.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-14470950-dt-content-rid-80602580_4/institution/Worldwide_Online/ASCI_GR_Courses/ASCI_530/Module_Lectures/ASCI_530_Module_2_Lecture.pdf

QH-50 DASH and MQ-8 Fire Scout Similarities

Hosler 1.5 Assignment
While there are many UAS systems that have a long heritage in common with earlier systems the QH-50 DASH and the MQ-8 Fire Scout seem to be especially closely related.  They are both U.S. Navy systems with similar mission objectives and capabilities despite 50 years difference in development.  “In the global war on terrorism, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are continually demonstrating their capabilities to perform numerous chores for forces ashore and afloat. For the Navy, however, UAVs are not a recent development. One airframe that entered service more than four decades ago showed the potential for UAVs current success.” (Winkler, 2006, p. 46)
The QH-50 DASH was revolutionary and ahead of its time in many ways. Current rotary wing UAVs such as the MQ-8 Fire Scout and Boeing’s optionally manned AH-6 brag about their achievements in landing on the back of small Navy Frigates and Destroyers while the “DSN-1 (DASH) successfully landed onboard a destroyer at sea in July 1960.” (Blom, 2010, p. 53)  These systems also talk about how they are revolutionary in giving small warships beyond the horizon weapons and reconnaissance capability. The DASH was doing this in the 1960’s.  A major difference the DASH has with modern naval rotary wing UAVs is that it was made with relatively cheap components because it was not expected to survive its primary mission of anti-submarine warfare. “As DASH was originally designed to drop Mk 57 nuclear depth charges or torpedoes, it was built with the idea that it would not survive the resulting blast.” ("DASH History," 2014, p. 13)  This initial requirement is one of the main reasons that eventually led to the cancellation of the program in the 1970’s.  Despite many firsts and successful deployments to Vietnam like many UAV systems before and after the program was cancelled due to technical and budgetary issues.
The MQ-8 Fire Scout is an impressive system.  The “B” variant has been successfully deployed to Afghanistan to assist in the global war on terror as well as being deployed to anti-piracy missions off of Africa with great success. The new “C” variant promises to bring all the capabilities of the “B” with longer mission time and greater payload capabilities.  While the QH-50 was able to perform shipboard landings it relied on two controllers, one on the flight deck for take-off and landing and another in the CIC for the mission.  The MQ-8 has improved on this by moving away from a man-in-the loop control scheme for landing to a man-on-the-loop system. “The MQ-8B Fire Scout has the ability to autonomously take off and land from any aviation-capable warship and at unprepared landing zones.” ("Fire Scout," 2014, p. 1)  The MQ-8 system continues the tradition of the QH-50 by being able to deploy weapons as well as provide expanded ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) capabilities including maritime radar.  The Fire Scout system can provide continuous surveillance at 110 nm with a two aircraft system with minimal impact on ship operations. ("Fire Scout," 2014)
The MQ-8 system may be more sophisticated and provide longer mission time as well as greater mission capabilities but the QH-50 DASH pioneered these capabilities decades before.  As with any technological system advancements are made on the backs of the previous system and the MQ-8 has a lot to live up to.


References
Blom, J. D. (2010, September 2010). Unmanned Aerial Systems: A Historical Perspective. Occasional Paper 37, 1-153. Retrieved from https://erau.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-14470938-dt-content-rid-76607724_4/institution/Worldwide_Online/ASCI_GR_Courses/ASCI_530/External_Link/M1_Readings_Unmanned_Aerial_Systems_A_historical_perpective.pdf
DASH History: The Dash Weapon System. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/dash_history.htm
MQ-8 Fire Scout. (2014). Retrieved March 27, 2014, from www.northropgrumman.com/capabilities/FireScout/pages/default.aspx
Winkler, D. F. (2006). DASH Was Truly A Pioneer UAV. Sea Power, 49(7), 46. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/235992318?accountid=27203