ASCI 637, Assignment 2.3, FAA Airworthiness Certification for UAS

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airworthiness Certification for UAS    

     The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires airworthiness certification to ensure appropriate safety standards in an aircraft’s design.  An FAA type design approval indicates that a safety evaluation of an aircraft’s design and its system has been conducted in accordance with applicable airworthiness regulations.  This certification process is more rigorous than simply determining that an aircraft is airworthy (FAA, 2013, p. 25).  FAA certification is vital to the future integration of UAS operations in the National Airspace System (NAS).

     The FAA airworthiness certification covers all safety aspects of an aircraft’s design.  The development of a sense-and-avoid (SAA) system for UAS to help maintain safe separation from other air traffic has received a significant amount of media attention.  However, SAA is only one aspect of the overall safety features of an unmanned aircraft.  Programs such as the FAA’s NextGen, command, control, and communication (C3) links, and C3 frequency management will all be significant factors in the future of these aircraft in the NAS.  A UAS will most likely have met all the criteria to safely operate in the NAS and demonstrated systems, such as SAA and Automated Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) compliance, to attain FAA airworthiness certification (Warwick, 2014).

     U.S. Congress initially set September 2015 as a goal for integration of UAS into NAS operations.  In 2014, the FAA outlined a plan for phased implementation approach to achieve this goal over the course of five years.  Disputes over the definition of UAS integration between the FAA and Department of Transportation inspectors added administrative delays to the process.  A significant point of contention was safe versus full integration (Warwick, 2014).  To date, the FAA has set regulations for recreational flight, exceptions for commercial use, and plans for UAS pilot certification (FAA, 2016).

     Potential commercial UAS operators have been waiting for the FAA to finalize unmanned aircraft regulations to initiate their aerial operations.  Future operators agree that safety and security of flight operation is vital for UAS integration into NAS operations.  SAA systems to de-conflict with other air traffic and secure C3 links to prevent unauthorized control inputs are some of the technological challenges that must be met (Business Aviation Insider Staff, 2016).  The development of these technologies will be as important as the FAA finalizing UAS regulations.  Completion of these steps will guide criteria for FAA airworthiness certifications.

References:

Business Aviation Insider Staff.  (2016, February 1).  Integrating UAS Into Business Aviation Operations.  National Business Aviation Association.  Retrieved from https://www.nbaa.org/ops/uas/20160201-integrating-uas-into-business-aviation-operations.php

Federal Aviation Administration.  (2016).  Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Frequently Asked Questions/Help [Fact Sheet].  Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/uas/faqs/#krp

Federal Aviation Administration.  (2013).  Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) Roadmap (FAA 2012-AJG-502).  Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Warwick, G.  (2014, July 3).  FAA Preparing Phased Integration Of UAS Over Five Years.  Aviation Week.  Retrieved from http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/faa-preparing-phased-integration-uas-over-five-years

ASCI 637, Assignment 1.5, UAS Strengths and Weaknesses

     The General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial system (UAS) is used primarily in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions by the U.S Air Force (USAF).  The aircraft’s ISR capabilities have also prompted the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) to procure the UAS to patrol the borders of the continental U.S.  The Reaper is fully capable of performing the military and civic missions.  However, the aircraft’s design also inherently brings strengths and weaknesses to its missions.

     The MQ-9 is well suited to perform military ISR missions.  The aircraft has a maximum speed of 240 knots, a service ceiling of 50,000 feet, and an endurance of 27 hours.  The payload is highly modular and available sensors include electro-optical imaging systems, multi-mode ground and maritime radars, electronic support measures, and laser designators (General Atomics, 2016).  These features provide a highly capable high altitude, long endurance (HALE) ISR asset to support military forces.  However, the Reaper was designed primarily for carrying aloft a sizeable sensor payload for long durations.  The relatively slow top speed is a shortcoming of the UAS.  The high service ceiling provides a good vantage point to mitigate the speed deficiency.  However, mission planning must account for the time needed for the aircraft to climb to that altitude.

     The CBP has acquired MQ-9s for patrol and ISR missions primarily along the southern frontier of the U.S.  The aircraft’s endurance, operating altitude, and sensor suite provide useful capabilities for border ISR missions (Booth, 2011).  However, the Reaper was also designed to carry munitions aloft.  The airframe and powerplant of the UAS was designed for this task and is probably far more than what is required for CBP’s mission.  Avionics such as the laser designator is unnecessary since the CBP aircraft are unarmed.  CBP UAS pilots also require significant training to operate the MQ-9.  As the primary and most experienced operators of this platform, USAF units and defense contractors have furnished the CBP’s instruction (Gunderson, 2015).

     A request for proposal for a UAS optimized for CBP’s specific ISR requirements would probably yield a smaller and easier to operate platform.  A smaller UAS, such as the Boeing/Insitu ScanEagle, would also have a much smaller logistical footprint.  The Reaper requires an airfield while the ScanEagle uses a catapult and arresting system for recovery (Insitu, 2016).  CBP Reaper operations are restricted at certain airfields due to runway approaches that pass over populated areas (Booth, 2011).  The capability to operate from mobile locations versus fixed airfields also reduces vulnerability to human intelligence sources watching for CBP operations.  A less complicated and easier to fly UAS would also reduce the time and expenses required for CBP pilots’ training and travel.

     A single platform capable of both the military and civil ISR missions would be ideal.   However, the former requires the carriage and delivery of munitions while the latter does not.  These requirements would produce a UAS design that is fitting for one mission while being “overkill” for the other mission.  One agency would be funding features that are unnecessary to its mission.  A cost benefit analysis would be necessary to determine whether resources are best allocated to developing a single platform for both military and civil missions or developing two separate UAS to perform each agency’s mission.

References:

Booth, W.  (2011, December 21).  More Predator Drones Fly U.S.-Mexico Border.  Washington Post.  Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/more-predator-drones-fly-us-mexico-border/2011/12/01/gIQANSZz8O_story.html

General Atomics.  (2016).  Predator B RPA [Fact Sheet].  Retrieved from http://www.ga-asi.com/predator-b

Gunderson, D.  (2015, February 19).  Drone Patrol: Unmanned Craft Find Key Role in U.S. Border Security.  Minnesota Public Radio News.  Retrieved from https://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/02/19/predator-drone

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