Design of Sensor Standards for
RQ-7B Shadow under Loss-Link
Francisco Choi
Zach Moore
Sam Ogdoc
Jon Pearson
Sponsor: Andrew Lacher, MITRE CAASD
MITRE
1
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Context Analysis
Stakeholder Analysis
Problem & Need Statement
Scope Overview
Design Alternatives
Method of Analysis
Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
MITRE
2
Unmanned Aircraft System
• A UAS is the unmanned aircraft and all of the associated support
equipment, control station, data links, telemetry, communications and
navigation equipment, etc., necessary to operate the unmanned aircraft.
Current System Attributes
UAS Categories
Group 1
Operational Altitude (ft)
Typical
Payload
> 40,000
RADAR
Airspeed (kts)
Global Hawk
> 250
Group 2
< 40,000
Group 3
< 10,000
Group 4
< 5,000
Moving Target
Indicator
(MTI)
UAS Models
Predator
Reaper
< 250
Pioneer
Dragonfly
Eagle Eye
< 100
Shadow
Silver Fox
ScanEagle
< 60
Hornet
Raven
MAV
E-O/IR
Group 5
< 1,000
MITRE
[1]
3
Expanding Roles of UAS
• The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) set a Target Level of Safety
(TLS) of 10-7 (collisions per flight hour) in the System Safety Handbook
(SSH).
MITRE
[2],[3]
4
Manned VS Unmanned
Pilot Location
Collision Avoidance
Avoidance Maneuver
MITRE
Manned Aircraft
Unmanned Aircraft System
Onboard
Ground Control Station
See-and-Avoid
Sense-and-Avoid (SAA)
Visual Scanning
Sensors
Direct Pilot Commands
Pre-Programmed Procedure
5
Sense-and-Avoid
Detect
S1
•
Track
S2
FAA (2009) – “Sense-and-Avoid (SAA) is the
capability of a UAS to remain well clear and
avoid collisions with other airborne traffic.”
Evaluate
S3
Prioritize
S4
Declare
Threat
S5
Determine
Action
S6
Command
S7
Execute
S8
MITRE
[20]
6
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Context Analysis
Stakeholder Analysis
Problem & Need Statement
Scope Overview
Design Alternatives
Method of Analysis
Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
MITRE
7
Stakeholder Analysis
Primary Stakeholders
Objectives
•
Developing policy, guidance material, and Standards
for the NAS
DoD
•
Military Operations
DHS
•
Border Protection and maritime surveillance
NASA
•
Science and aeronautical research
FAA
Conflicts/Tensions
•
No Standardization Requirements
•
Put pressure on FAA to integrate
UAS into the NAS to accomplish
objectives
Objectives
Stakeholder
Conflicts/Tensions
Air Traffic Controllers
•
Secure and maintain the orderly flow of air traffic
•
Increased Workload
Manned Aircraft Pilots
•
Avoid collisions
•
Sense-and-Avoid << See-and-Avoid
UAS Manufacturers
•
Manufacture UAS for operators
•
Different procedures to perform SAA
MITRE
8
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Context Analysis
Stakeholder Analysis
Problem & Need Statement
Scope Overview
Design Alternatives
Method of Analysis
Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
MITRE
9
Problem / Need Statement
TLS
Gap
Level of
Safety
0
MITRE
Sensor Capability
1
FAA Reauthorization Bill (2011) – develop a comprehensive plan for integration
FAA Modernization and Reform Act (2012) – safely accelerate the plan
10
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Context Analysis
Stakeholder Analysis
Problem & Need Statement
Scope Overview
Design Alternatives
Method of Analysis
Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
MITRE
11
Airspace Classifications
• Airspace – The space lying above the earth or a certain area above land or water;
esp. the space lying above a nation and coming under its jurisdiction.
• In the United States, airspace jurisdiction is granted to the FAA by Title 49 of the
United States Code.
Airspace where
project is focused
MITRE
[8]
12
RQ-7B Shadow
• Aircraft Armament Inc. (AAI)
• Mission: Provides near-real-time
reconnaissance, surveillance, target
acquisition, and enforce protection.
• Onboard sensors: Electrooptic/Infrared (E-O/IR)
• Currently equipped with POP300
o Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI)
POP300 sensor
MITRE
13
E-O/IR Sensors
• 2 sensors: Daylight CCD camera & Infrared Sensor
o Daylight Visible CCD Camera – a visible light imaging ranged system which can only be
used in the day time. Carries a high magnification and resolution.
o Infrared sensor – infrared ranged light imaging system which senses and differentiates
one object from another by their difference in temperature.
• E-O/IR Sensor Alternatives:
Resolution (pix)
Azimuth (deg)
Elevation (deg)
POP300
640x480
+60 – 130
-60 – +15
POP300D
1280x1204
+180
-90 – +25
MITRE
[12],[13]
14
Scope Summary
• Class E Airspace at an altitude of 3000 ft. AGL
• Group 4 UAS: RQ-7B Shadow
• The UAS will be operating under loss link with no outside
communication
• Operating in the X-Y plane
o Only horizontal resolution considered
o Elevation not a factor
• Only the RQ-7B Shadow and another aircraft will exist in the
airspace at any given time
• No elevated terrain within the airspace
• No weather disturbances while under loss-link.
o i.e. clouds, thunderstorms
MITRE
15
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Context Analysis
Stakeholder Analysis
Problem & Need Statement
Scope Overview
Design Alternatives
Method of Analysis
Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
MITRE
16
Design Alternatives
Sensor Model
Horizontal
Resolution (pix)
POP300
640
POP300 x 2
1280
POP300D
POP300D x 2
1605
3210
Azimuth (deg)
+90˚
+110˚
+130˚
+130˚
+150˚
+170˚
+180˚
•Small Azimuth = High Detection Range
•Large Azimuth = Low Detection Range
MITRE
[18]
17
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Context Analysis
Stakeholder Analysis
Problem & Need Statement
Scope Overview
Design Alternatives
Method of Analysis
Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
MITRE
18
Method of Analysis
A: Airspace Area
Generated
Aircraft
N: # Aircraft
Airspace Simulation
SLS*
NMAC Data
E[Vr]: Expected Relative Velocity
A: Airspace Area
g: Aircraft
Dimension
Sensor Performance
Model
ALS*
Design Alternatives
N: # Aircraft
Gas Model of
Aircraft Collisions
MITRE
ELS*
SLS: Simulated Level of Safety – No SAA
ELS: Expected Level of Safety – Validation
ALS: Actual Level of Safety – Design alternatives
19
Airspace Simulation
•No SAA Performed
•Generated Aircraft Parameters
•(X,Y) - random location on an edge of the airspace
•P – Heading – random depending on initial location
•V – Velocity ~ N(126.5,22.5) NM/hr
•G – Dimension ~ N(29.86,3.58) ft.
A
Aircraft Parameters
X, Y, P, V, G
N
Airspace Simulation
Outputs
-Matlab vectorization of relative motion
•Outputs
•β: projection of manned aircraft onto the UAS (degrees)
•E[Vr] - average of relative velocities for each aircraft with respect to the UAS
Vr (v i2 v 2j 2v iv j cos( ))1/ 2
•NMAC Data – X, Y, P, V, G, β, Vr – recorded whenever NMAC occurs
•#NMACs & #Collisions
•Simulated Level of Safety (SLS) - # Collisions / Flight Hours
MITRE
[15]
20
Airspace Simulation Results
MITRE
21
Gas Model of Aircraft Collisions
MITRE
[15]
22
Sensor Performance Model
Aircraft
Size: G
MITRE
Detection
Range: d
RQ-7B
Shadow
[3]
23
Sample Calculations
P300-90
MITRE
P300-130
24
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Context Analysis
Stakeholder Analysis
Problem & Need Statement
Scope Overview
Design Alternatives
Method of Analysis
Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
MITRE
25
Sensor Performance Results
Azimuth
(deg)
Avg. Detection
Distance (NM)
Avg. TBN (s)
% NMACs
Detected
+90
1.10
8.88
16.53
+110
0.91
7.19
27.62
+130
0.82
5.90
32.33
+130
1.67
12.91
47.97
+150
1.41
11.09
69.16
+170
1.28
9.73
91.17
POP300D
+180
1.50
11.92
99.97
2x POP300D
+180
3.07
25.10
99.99
Sensor
POP300
2x POP300
MITRE
26
ALS Results
Sensor
POP300
2x POP300
Azimuth (deg)
Actual Level
of Safety
Utility
+90
2.53*10-4
0.2899
+110
2.19*10-4
0.3201
+130
2.05*10-4
0.3349
+130
1.57*10-4
0.3958
+150
9.33*10-5
0.5250
+170
2.67*10-5
0.7944
TLS Threshold 10-7
POP300D
+180
8.51*10-8
0.9995
2x
POP300D
+180
3.72*10-8
1.0000
MITRE
27
Sensor Cost vs Utility
• Cost of 1 POP300: 260K
• Cost of 1 POP300D: 1.5*260K = 390K
MITRE
[12]
28
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Context Analysis
Stakeholder Analysis
Problem & Need Statement
Scope Overview
Design Alternatives
Method of Analysis
Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
MITRE
29
Conclusions and Recommendations
MITRE
30
Questions?
MITRE
31
Gantt Chart
MITRE
32
Model Assumptions
Aircraft
# Produced Cruise Speed Cruise^2
Cessna 172R
43000
122
14884
Piper Cherokee
32778
108
11664
Cessna 182
23237
145
21025
Cessna 150
23954
107
11449
Beechcraft Bonanza
17000
176
30976
Length
27.17
23.3
29
24.75
27.5
Wingspan
36.08
30
36
33.33
33.5
Area
980.29
699.00
1044.00
824.92
921.25
E(x)
E(x)^2
E(x^2)
126.5314
16010.1834
16516.0419
E(x)
E(x)^2
E(x^2)
891.2345
794298.8941
810125.8990
Var
SD
505.8585
22.4913
Var
SD
15827.0050
125.8054
MITRE
Area^2
960975.54
488601.00
1089936.00
680488.88
848701.56
33
References
[1] 49 U.S.C. Title 49 – Transportation. 03 Jan. 2012.
[2] Wells, Norman E. Air Superiority Comes First. Air University Review. Colorado Springs, CO. Nov. 1972.
[3] Muraru, Adiran. A Critical Analysis of Sense and Avoid Technologies for Modern UAVs. Advances in Mechanical Engineering 2.1 (2012): 1-7.
Print.
[4] Weatherington, Dyke. Unmanned Aircraft Systems. DoD Publication 10-S-1660. 20 Apr. 2010.
[5] Federal Aviation Administration. Order 7610.4K: Special Military Operations. 19 Feb. 2004.
[6] Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036. 2011.
[7] FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012: Conference Report. 1 Feb. 2012.
[8] Federal Aviation Administration. Sense and Avoid (SAA) for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs). Oct. 2009.
[9] Code of Federal Regulations. Part 91: General Operating and Flight Rules.
[10] FAA Systems Safety Handbook. 30 December, 2000.
[11] Code of Federal Regulations. Part 71: Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Airways; Routes; and Reporting Points.
[12] Israel Aerospace Industries. POP300: Lightweight Compact Multi Sensor Stabilizing Plug-in Optronic Payload. Web. 30 Mar. 2013.
[13] Israel Aerospace Industries. POP300D-HD High Definition Plug-In Optronic Payload – ‘Designator.’ Web. 30 Mar. 2013.
[14] Cessna 172. Wikimedia Foundation, 29 Mar. 2013. Web. 31 Mar. 2013.
[15] Endoh, S. Aircraft Collision Models. Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
1982.
[16] Chamlaibern, Lyle, Christopher Geyer, and Sanjiv Singh. "Avoiding Collisions Between Aircraft: State of the Art and Requirements for
UAVs Operating in Civilian Airspace." (n.d.): n. pag. Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, 28 Jan. 2008. Web.
[17] Load Factor (aeronautics)." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 29 Mar. 2013. Web. 31 Mar. 2013.
[18] Griffith, J. Daniel, Mykel, J. Kochenderfer, and James K. Kuchar. Electro-Optical System Analysis for Sense and Avoid. 21 Aug. 2008. Web.
10 Jan. 2013.
[19] Airspace. (n.d.) In Merriam Webster.com online. Retrieved 17 April, 2013, from http://www.merriam-webster.com
[20] Lacher, Andrew R., David R. Maroney, Dr. Andrew D. Zeitlin. Unmanned Aircraft Collision Avoidance – Technology Assessment and
Evaluation Methods. The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA, USA.
34
MITRE