UAS Safety Assessment and Functional Requirements

  • Konstantinos Dalamagkidis
  • Kimon P. Valavanis
  • Les A. Piegl
Part of the Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering book series (ISCA, volume 54)

Abstract

The primary goal of regulating UAS operations is to assure an appropriate level of safety. This goal is quantified by most national aviation agencies as an “Equivalent Level of Safety” with that of manned aviation, also known as the ELOS principle. Although ELOS is difficult to define, some insight may be gained by analyzing accident statistics of manned aviation and enforcing similar requirements to UAS. The evaluation of risk of UAS operations can be obtained by estimating the number of people exposed to particular accidents and the probability of injuries or fatalities given exposure. Although this seems straightforward, there are many ways of calculating estimates for the parameters involved, which can lead to very divergent results.

Keywords

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Unmanned Aerial System Fault Tree Analysis Ground Control Station Ground Impact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Clothier R, Walker R (2006) Determination and evaluation of UAV safety objectives. In: Proc. 21st International Unmanned Air Vehicle Systems Conference, Irvine, CA, USA, pp 18.1–18.16 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clothier R, Walker R, Fulton N, Campbell D (2007) A casualty risk analysis for unmanned aerial system (UAS) operations over inhabited areas. In: Proc. 12th Australian International Aerospace Congress and 2nd Australasian Unmanned Air Vehicles Conference, Melbourne, Australia Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cole JK, Young LW, Jordan-Culler T (1997) Hazards of falling debris to people, aircraft, and watercraft. Sandia Report SAND97-0805, Sandia National Laboratories Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dalamagkidis K, Valavanis K, Piegl L (2008) Current status and future perspectives for unmanned aircraft system operations in the US. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems 52(2):313–329 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    European Aviation Safety Agency (2009) Airworthiness certification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). Policy Statement, E.Y013-01 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (2005) A-NPA, No. 16/2005, policy for unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) certification Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (2007) Certification specification 25 (CS25). Amendment 3 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Federal Aviation Administration (1999) Equipment, systems and installations in part 23 airplanes. AC 23.1309-1C Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feinstein DI, Haugel WF, Kardatzke ML, Weinstock A (1968) Personnel casualty study. Tech. Rep. Project No. J 6067, Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haber JM, Linn AM (2005) Practical models of human vulnerability to impacting debris. In: Proc. First IAASS Conference: “Space Safety, a New Beginning”, Nice, France, ESA SP-599, pp 543–548 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haddon DR, Whittaker CJ (2002) Aircraft airworthiness certification standards for civil UAVs. UK Civil Aviation Authority Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hayhurst KJ, Maddalon JM, Miner PS, Szatkowski GN, Ulrey ML, Dewalt MP, Spitzer CR (2007) Preliminary considerations for classifying hazards of unmanned aircraft systems. Tech. Rep. NASA TM-2007-214539, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    INnovative Operational UAS Integration (INOUI) (2009) Proposal for the integration of UAS into non-segregated airspace. Booklet Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Joint Capability Group on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (2007) STANAG 4671 - Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems Airworthiness Requirements (USAR). draft, NATO Naval Armaments Group Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Joint JAA/Eurocontrol Initiative on UAVs (2004) A concept for european regulations for civil unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). Final Report Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) (2008) Accident database and synopses. Online, [online] http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
  17. 17.
    National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) (2008) Aviation accident statistics. Online, [online] http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm
  18. 18.
    Range Safety Group, Range Commanders Council (1999) Range safety criteria for unmanned air vehicles. Document 323-99 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Range Safety Group, Range Commanders Council (1999) Range safety criteria for unmanned air vehicles - rationale and methodology supplement. Supplement to document 323-99 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Range Safety Group, Range Commanders Council (2007) Common risk criteria standards for national test ranges. Document 321-07 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Range Safety Group, Range Commanders Council (2007) Common risk criteria standards for national test ranges: Supplement. Supplement to document 321-07 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sturdivan LM, Viano DC, Champion HR (2004) Analysis of injury criteria to assess chest and abdominal injury risks in blunt and ballistic impacts. Journal of Trauma 56(3):651–663 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    US Department of Defense (2000) Standard practice for system safety. MIL-STD-882D Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    US Department of Defense (2007) Unmanned systems safety guide for DoD acquisition. First Edition (Version.96) Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weibel RE (2005) Safety considerations for operation of different classes of unmanned aerial vehicles in the national airspace system. Master’s thesis, Department of Aeronautics & Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weibel RE, Hansman RJ (2003) Safety considerations for operation of small unmanned aerial vehicles in civil airspace. Presented in MIT Joint University Program Quarterly Meeting Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weibel RE, Hansman RJ (2004) Safety considerations for operation of different classes of UAVs in the NAS. In: Proc. AIAA 4th Aviation Tehcnology, Integration and Operations Forum and AIAA 3rd Unmanned Unlimited Technical Conference, Workshop and Exhibit, Chicago, IL, USA Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Konstantinos Dalamagkidis
    • 1
  • Kimon P. Valavanis
    • 2
  • Les A. Piegl
    • 3
  1. 1.Institut für Informatik VITechnische Universität MünchenGarching bei MünchenGermany
  2. 2.Dept. Electrical & Computer EngineeringUniversity of DenverDenverUSA
  3. 3.Dept. Computer Science & EngineeringUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations