ASCI 638, Assignment 9.7, Case Analysis Effectiveness

     The case analysis tool is a useful resource to present a solution for a problem.  The organization of the completed project provides a readable narrative flowing from background information to a recommendation.  Specific sections of the completed project may vary, with some being easier to follow than others.

     This academic term’s project was organized to provide the reader with an informative background to the issue, identification and severity of the problem, alternate actions, and a recommended solution.  This analysis process is logical and follows a reasonable sequence.  A process not much different is used in my workplace.  The majority of course of action (COA) briefings follow a similar process.  This is especially true when the senior leader selecting the COA may not be the subject matter expert on the specific issue.  Sufficient background information must be provided to be informative without being overwhelming.  Proposed COAs must have sound reasoning.  Software model test cases also use a similar process.  Requirements and reasoning are provided for context.  Problems identified through failed trials in test cases and their severity should be thoroughly documented.  Workarounds and suggested solutions by the testers can assist with debugging.  In each case, an important component of problem solving is a good understanding of the problem from the beginning of the process (Rusbult, 1989).

     The parts of the case analysis tool has differed from class to class.  Some classes have required sections discussing design overview and decisions.  These two sections can overlap and present a challenge in separating the discussions.  Another section often required is logic design.  This section can prove a challenge for cases in which software development or modification is not a significant factor in the proposed solution.  Solutions that make use of “off-the-shelf” software will not have much discussion for this part.  Problem solving requires flexibility to handle the challenges in developing a solution (Rusbult, 1989).  This applies to the case analysis tool as well.  The format and parts in the project should be customized for a particular problem.  The right approach to address one problem may not be right for another.

Referenecs:

Rusbult, C.  (1989).  Strategies for Problem Solving.  The American Scientific Affiliation.  Retrieved from http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/202.htm

ASCI 638, Assignment 7.7,Operational Risk Management

The AeroVironment RQ-11 Raven is a small unmanned aerial system (UAS) built for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions.  The aircraft has a length of three feet, a wingspan of 4.5 feet, and weighs about 4.2 pounds.  The unmanned aircraft typically operates at altitudes of 100 to 500 feet, can reach speeds of 50 miles per hour, and has an endurance of 1.5 hours.  The Raven is equipped with electro-optical and infrared cameras on gimballed mounts for stability.  The ground control station (GCS) is a highly portable, compact, and lightweight system providing a terminal for imagery and video display.  The UAS is hand-launched and recovered with an automated flight program that brings the aircraft to a stall near the ground.  The Raven and its GCS have a line-of-sight (LOS) control range of up to six miles in day or night operations.  The UAS can be manually flown via the GCS or autonomously operated to GPS waypoints designated by the operator (AeroVironment, 2016).

The hand launching technique of getting the Raven airborne obviates the requirement for a launching mechanism and its logistical footprint.  However, this technique is also the source of great potential for mishaps and crashes during take-off.  Proficiency and consistency in throwing techniques varies widely with each person.  An improper launch can place the aircraft at an attitude and altitude that the operator cannot recover from.  The out-of-control Raven could collide with terrain, vehicles, equipment, vegetation, or personnel.  Although safety measures can be taken to ensure personnel remain clear of the intended flight path, the personnel performing the hand launch must be in close proximity.  An out-of-control Raven could deviate significantly from the intended flight path and strike personnel standing in what was thought to be a safe location (Why Soldiers Hate the Raven UAV, 2012).  Although the probability of a 4.2 pound object causing serious injury is most likely low, it is best to mitigate that risk.  A good launch is a significant factor in the operator’s chances to control and climb the aircraft away from the initial throw (Good Raven Launch, 2014). 

Another issue with hand launching the Raven is the potential close proximity to which the UAS’ propeller comes to the launcher’s head.  Depending on the arm motion, the launcher could be injured by a propeller strike and the aircraft could also be damaged in the process.  The exposed propeller also presents a hazard if the launcher is holding the UAS in the wrong spot.   Injury could also be inflicted if the motor is inadvertently started before the launcher is ready and has a hand within the propeller arc (Why Soldiers Hate the Raven UAV, 2012).

A solution to significantly reduce the Raven’s launch risks is a mechanical system to send the UAS airborne.  A system similar to the catapult used to launch the Boeing/Insitu ScanEagle would be suitable (Insitu, 2016).  A smaller, lighter, and more portable version would be sufficient for the lighter, smaller Raven while keeping the logistical footprint small.  A mechanical system would remove the uncertain nature of improper form in manual launches.  A catapult would also allow all personnel to distance themselves from the UAS as it is launched.

References:

 

AeroVironment.  (2016).  RQ-11B Raven [Fact Sheet].  Retrieved from

http://www.avinc.com/uas/view/raven

Good Raven Launch [Video File].  Retrieved from

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2hi6F5DKAE

Insitu.  (2016).  ScanEagle [Fact Sheet].  Retrieved from https://insitu.com/information-

            delivery/unmanned-systems/scaneagle

Why Soldiers Hate the Raven UAV [Video File].  Retrieved from http://www.military.com/

            video/aircraft/pilotless-aircraft/why-soldiers-hate-the-raven-uav/1661802396001

ASCI 638, Assignment 6.7, Automated Take-Off and Landing

Automation in aviation alleviates some of the workload on pilots and aircrew in operating the aircraft.  Automated control systems capable of handling take-offs and landings can assist aviators during some of the most demanding phases of flight.  Aircraft carrier operations are some of the most demanding tasks for aviators.  Automated take-offs and landings from carrier decks significantly contribute to reducing the burden on naval aviators.  However, the automated system is still a mechanical and electrical device and subject to failures.  A manual control options must still be present for these contingencies.

The Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet multi-role fighter aircraft is equipped with the Automated Carrier Landing System (ACLS).  Schrum (2007) writes that the aircraft flight control computers continuously receive discrete commands from the aircraft carrier landing system that in turn actuate the aircraft flight controls in order to establish and maintain an on glideslope / on azimuth flight profile to touchdown (p. 1).  The shipboard equipment comprising the ACLS is designated the AN/SPN-46(V3).  The system consists of a precision tracking radar, a ship motion sensor, and a high speed general purpose computer (Schrum, 2007, p. 5).  Schrum (2007) writes that the ACLS significantly aids naval aviators in recovering on board the carrier, particularly when the pilot is stressed and fatigued from long, demanding missions, when poor weather has developed, or both.  The automated system can save lives, preserve aircraft, and aid in smoother tactical carrier operations (p. 31-32).

Equipment “wear and tear” affects reliability of ACLS components over time and presents the primary weakness in the system.  Preventative maintenance and periodic certifications are required to sustain operations (Schrum, 2007, p. 33).  Another weakness is that excessive motion of the carrier in high seas may render the ACLS unable to perform a safe landing (Schrum, 2007, p. 34).  Established procedures and continuous monitoring of the ACLS by the pilot, carrier personnel, and aircraft itself are employed to maximize safety of landings.  If any component in this system determines that a safe approach cannot be made, the pilot expediently alerted and manual control is asserted (Schrum, 2007, p. 31-32).  Schrum (2007) also recommends increased use of the ACLS to increase proficiency and promotion of a culture accepting of and recognizing the benefits of automation to increase confidence in the system (p. 43-44).

The Northrop Grumman X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) is a prototype unmanned aircraft built to test suitability for aircraft carrier and naval aviation operations.  The X-47B operates largely autonomously.  Human operators set the aircraft’s destinations and the UCAS’ control system flies the aircraft to the specified location (Dillow, 2013).  The X-47B program preceded the planned successor to the ACLS, the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS), and conducted carrier landings using ACLS (Freedberg, 2014).  The UCAS uses three navigation computers for redundancy and to check each other for anomalies.  During one of the landing trials, the control system detected a fault, aborted the UCAS’ approach, flew a holding pattern over the carrier, informed the human operators, and awaited further instructions.  The controllers ultimately directed the aircraft to divert to a land base for recovery (Hillis, 2013).  Dillow (2013) writes that the aircraft never makes a decision itself that operators haven't preprogrammed it to make, so the humans always know exactly what it is doing and always maintain the power to change what it is doing.  Although the X-47B was never intended for operational service, cybersecurity is a vulnerability for successors, such as the planned Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft.  The command, control, and communication (C3) links for an unmanned combat aircraft must be secure and robust to ensure control over the platform (Dillow, 2013).

The level of automation in the X-47B during take-off and landing is appropriate for these delicate phases of flight.  Latency in C3 links means that, during manual remote control, there is a slight delay in a pilot’s control inputs and the aircraft’s response.  Given the importance of accurate, timely corrections in carrier landings and take-offs, a lag in control response would be very difficult to deal with (X-47B Historic Drone Carrier Landing, 2013).  However, in the event of a complete failure of the redundant navigation computers and a lack of divert bases on shore, a backup manual control system must be available.  Mounting this system on the ship would reduce the latency in the C3 link as much as possible.

The advances in automation systems will make aircraft carrier take-offs and landings easier for manned and unmanned aircraft.  However, automation systems are still mechanical and electrical devices that can fail.  A manual control system must be available for these contingencies and humans must maintain the skills to effective use these controls.

 

References:

Dillow, C.  (2013, July 5).  What the X-47B Reveals About the Future of Autonomous Flight.  Popular Science.  Retrieved from http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-05/five-things-you-need-know-about-x-47b-and-coming-era-autonomous-flight

Freedberg Jr, S.  (2014, August 17).  X-47B Drone & Manned F-18 Take Off & Land Together In Historic Test.  Breaking Defense.  Retrieved from http://breakingdefense.com/2014/08/ x-47b-drone-manned-f-18-take-off-land-together-in-historic-test/

Hillis, A.  (2013, July 12).  UCAS Carrier Landing Divert a Window Into Its Automation.

Aviation Week.  Retrieved from http://aviationweek.com/blog/ucas-carrier-landing-divert-window-its-automation

Schrum, B.  (2007).  F/A-18A-D Hornet Current and Future Utilization of Mode I Automatic

Carrier Landings (Masters Dissertation).  Retrieved from http://trace.tennessee.edu/ cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1356&context=utk_gradthes

X-47B Historic Drone Carrier Landing [Video File].  Retrieved from

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw3m7bqrQ64