Air4All ‘UAV Insertion into General Air Traffic’ ESA …...Autonomous Behaviour Fault Management...

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


New stepwise approach

Step 1Segregated

Airspace

Step 2Non Segregated

Airspace


Airspace


Airspace

Fly within National Borders

Type Certificated UASs

State UASs Civil/State UASs

Non Type Certificated UASs

Experimental UASs


Airspace

Worldwide ICAO

Step 1aSegregated

Airspace

Civil/State UASs

Type Certificated UASs

Civil/State UASs

Step 5aNon Segregated

Airspace

State UASs


uncontrolled Airspace


uncontrolled Airspace

IFR

IFR IFR / VFR

IFR

IFR/VFR

ADDITIONAL STEPSADDITIONAL STEPSNOT FULLY DEVELOPEDNOT FULLY DEVELOPED

IN THIS STUDYIN THIS STUDY


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


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



Challenges 2/2


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


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


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


Integrated Plan for Technology Threads


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


• 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


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


Step 1Segregated

Airspace

Non Type Certificated UAVs Approved or Type Certificated State UAVs

Step 2 / Step3 Non Segregated

Airspace


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


Airspace


Airspace


Airspace


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


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


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


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


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



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


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)


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)


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)


Questions?More Information available @ www.air4all.net

Air4All ‘UAV Insertion into General Air Traffic’ ESA …...Autonomous Behaviour Fault Management...

Documents

Transcript of Air4All ‘UAV Insertion into General Air Traffic’ ESA …...Autonomous Behaviour Fault Management...