Towards a Unified Framework for UAS Autonomy and Technology Readiness Assessment (ATRA)

  • Farid Kendoul
Part of the Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering book series (ISCA, volume 65)


As the number of programs for developing autonomous unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) accelerates, there is a growing need for a comprehensive framework that allows UAS practitioners, particularly researchers, to characterize, compare, and assess the UAS autonomy technologies from the perspectives of their capabilities and maturity. In this chapter, we propose the autonomy and technology readiness assessment (ATRA) framework that provides definitions and metrics to systematically evaluate the autonomy level of a UAS and to correctly measure the maturity of its autonomy-enabling technologies. The ATRA framework combines both autonomy level (AL) and technology readiness level (TRL) metrics to provide a comprehensive picture of how the UAS would behave in realistic operational environment and its suitability for a particular application. An example of ATRA’s application to the CSIRO autonomous helicopter will be shown. This is still an ongoing research, and once the framework is further populated and completed, it can serve as a common reference for the UAS research community and provide a framework in which to evaluate the existing autonomy technologies, view how they relate to each other, and make qualitative and quantitative comparisons.


Autonomy level Performance assessment Technology readiness level Unmanned aircraft systems 


  1. 1.
    Castelfranchi C, Falcone R (2003) From automaticity to autonomy: the frontier of artificial agents. In: Agent autonomy. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 103–136Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clough BT (2002) Metrics, schmetrics! how the heck do you determine a UAV’s autonomy anyway? In: Proceedings of the performance metrics for intelligent systems workshop (PerMIS) conference, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, August 2002, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    DoD (2006) Technology readiness levels. US Department of Defence (DoD)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Director, Research Directorate (DRD) Office of the Director, Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) DoD (2009) Technology readiness assessment (TRA) deskbook. Defense Acquisition Guidebook, pp 1–129Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Endsley MR (1999) Situation awareness in aviation systems. In: Handbook of aviation human factors. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huang H-M (2008) Autonomy levels for unmanned systems (ALFUS) framework volume i: Terminology, version 2.0. Contributed by the ad hoc ALFUS working group participants, NIST special publication 1011-I-2.0, pp 1–47Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huang H-M, Messina E, Albus J (2007) Autonomy levels for unmanned systems (ALFUS) framework volume ii: Framework models, version 1.0. Contributed by the ad hoc ALFUS working group participants, NIST special publication 1011-II-1.0Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kendoul F (2012) A survey of advances in guidance, navigation and control of unmanned rotorcraft systems. J Field Robot 29(2):315–378Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mankins JC (1995) Technology readiness levels: a white paper. NASA, Office of Space Access and Technology, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Merz T, Kendoul F (2011) Beyond visual range obstacle avoidance and infrastructure inspection by an autonomous helicopter. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on robotics and autonomous systems (IROS), San Fransisco, USA, September 2011, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parasuraman R, Sheridan TB, Wickens CD (2000) A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 30(3):286–297Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Proud RW, Hart JJ, Mrozinski RB (2003) Methods for determining the level of autonomy to design into a human spaceflight vehicle: a function specific approach. In: Proceedings of the performance metrics for intelligent systems (PerMIS), Gaithersburg, MD, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sheridan TB (1992) Telerobotics, automation, and human supervisory control. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zeigler BP (1990) High autonomy systems: concepts and models. In: Proceedings of the AI, simulation, and planning in high autonomy systems, Tucson, AZ, March 1990, pp 2–7Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Autonomous Systems LaboratoryCSIRO ICT CentreBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations