Advertisement

Hazard and Safety Risk Modeling

  • Konstantinos Dalamagkidis
Reference work entry

Abstract

This chapter presents aspects of risk modeling with a focus on UAS. It provides an overview of the current level of safety of manned aviation in terms of accident statistics. These are then mapped as target levels for UAS under the “Equivalent Level of Safety” principle to provide a glimpse at what that may entail for UAS regulations. Different methodologies are presented for estimating the risk of ground impact and midair collision accidents and how these estimates can be translated to system requirements. The chapter also provides guidelines on the use of different risk models and then applies a selection of them to five different UAS in two distinct scenarios, to compare the results of different choices.

Keywords

Terminal Velocity Reliability Requirement Vulnerability Model Ground Impact General Aviation 
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.

References

  1. R. Clothier, R. Walker, Determination and evaluation of UAV safety objectives, in Proceedings of the 21st International Unmanned Air Vehicle Systems Conference, Irvine, 2006, pp. 18.1–18.16Google Scholar
  2. R. Clothier, R. Walker, N. Fulton, D. Campbell, A casualty risk analysis for unmanned aerial system (UAS) operations over inhabited areas, in Proceedings of the 12th Australian International Aerospace Congress and 2nd Australasian Unmanned Air Vehicles Conference, Melbourne, 2007Google Scholar
  3. J.K. Cole, L.W. Young, T. Jordan-Culler, Hazards of falling debris to people, aircraft, and watercraft. Sandia report, SAND97-0805, Sandia National Laboratories, 1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. K. Dalamagkidis, On integrating unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system, in Tutorial Presentation in 3rd International Symposium on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV’10), Dubai, UAE, 2010Google Scholar
  5. K. Dalamagkidis, K. Valavanis, L. Piegl, Current status and future perspectives for unmanned aircraft system operations in the U.S. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 52(2), 313–329 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. K. Dalamagkidis, K. Valavanis, L. Piegl, On Integrating Unmanned Aircraft Systems into the National Airspace System: Issues, Challenges, Operational Restrictions, Certification, and Recommendations. Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering, vol. 36, 2nd edn. (Springer, Dordrecht/New York, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), A-NPA, No. 16/2005, policy for unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) certification (2005)Google Scholar
  8. European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), Certification specification 25 (CS25). Amendment 3 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. European Aviation Safety Agency, Airworthiness certification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). Policy statement, E.Y01301 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. Federal Aviation Administration, Equipment, systems and installations in part 23 airplanes. AC 23.1309-1C (1999)Google Scholar
  11. D.I. Feinstein, W.F. Haugel, M.L. Kardatzke, A. Weinstock, Personnel casualty study. Technical Report Project No. J 6067, Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute, 1968Google Scholar
  12. FSF Editorial Staff, See what’s sharing your airspace. Flight Saf. Dig. 24(5), 1–26 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. J.M. Haber, A.M. Linn, Practical models of human vulnerability to impacting debris, in Proceedings of the First IAASS Conference: “Space Safety, a New Beginning”, Nice (ESA SP-599), 2005, pp. 543–548Google Scholar
  14. D.R. Haddon, C.J. Whittaker, Aircraft Airworthiness Certification Standards for Civil UAVs (UK Civil Aviation Authority, London, 2002)Google Scholar
  15. INnovative Operational UAS Integration (INOUI), Proposal for the integration of UAS into nonsegregated airspace. Booklet (2009)Google Scholar
  16. Joint Capability Group on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, STANAG 4671 – Unmanned aerial vehicle systems airworthiness requirements (USAR). Draft, NATO Naval Armaments Group (2007)Google Scholar
  17. Joint JAA/Eurocontrol Initiative on UAVs, A concept for European regulations for civil unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). Final report, 2004Google Scholar
  18. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Accident database and synopses (2008a), http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp (online)
  19. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Aviation accident statistics (2008b), http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm (online)
  20. Range Safety Group, Range Commanders Council, Range safety criteria for unmanned air vehicles. Document 323–99 (1999a)Google Scholar
  21. Range Safety Group, Range Commanders Council, Range safety criteria for unmanned air vehicles – rationale and methodology supplement. Supplement to document 323–99 (1999b)Google Scholar
  22. Range Safety Group, Range Commanders Council, Common risk criteria standards for national test ranges. Document 321–07 (2007a)Google Scholar
  23. Range Safety Group, Range Commanders Council, Common risk criteria standards for national test ranges: supplement. Supplement to document 321–07 (2007b)Google Scholar
  24. L.M. Sturdivan, D.C. Viano, H.R. Champion, Analysis of injury criteria to assess chest and abdominal injury risks in blunt and ballistic impacts. J. Trauma 56(3), 651–663 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. U.S. Department of Defense, Unmanned Systems Safety Guide for DoD Acquisition, 1st edn. (Version.96) (2007)Google Scholar
  26. U.S. Department of Defense Office of the Secretary of Defense, Unmanned aircraft systems roadmap 2005–2030. Report, 2005Google Scholar
  27. R.E. Weibel, 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, 2005Google Scholar
  28. R.E. Weibel, R.J. Hansman, Safety considerations for operation of small unmanned aerial vehicles in civil airspace. Presented in MIT Joint University Program Quarterly Meeting, Boston, 2003Google Scholar
  29. R.E. Weibel, R.J. Hansman, Safety considerations for operation of different classes of UAVs in the NAS, in Proceedings of the AIAA 4th Aviation Technology, Integration and Operations Forum and AIAA 3rd Unmanned Unlimited Technical Conference, Workshop and Exhibit, Chicago, 2004Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut föur Informatik I6, Technische Universität MünchenGarching bei MöunchenGermany

Personalised recommendations