Adam Watts
C1006832
T848 EMA
AN ASSESSMENT OF
INNOVATION ACTIVITY IN
UAV SENSE & AVOID
TECHNOLOGY–
INTEGRATING UAVs IN
CIVIL AIRSPACE.
1 of 13
Table of Contents
Part 1
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
Introduction and Overview
Systems Map-Figure 1
Sense & Avoid Technology Roadmap-Figure 2
Past Project Trajectory
Current Project Trajectory
Safety and the Future
The Way Ahead
Part 2
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
Critical Review
ASTRAEA and Open Innovation
Open Collaborative Innovation
3D-Robotics- A Case Study
Open Collaboration and Sense & Avoid
Innovation Systems
IPR Issues
Conclusion
Appendix A- Figure 1
Appendix B- Figure 2
2 of 13
PART 1
1.0
INTRODUTION AND OVERVIEW
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles have been used extensively by militaries in conflict zones, but
soon they could revolutionise the commercial aerospace industry with a broad range of
applications like aerial mapping, emergency service assistance, agriculture and cargo
shipment. Drawing on Henderson and Clarks’ definition of innovation, we can say that
commercial UAVs will be a radical innovation that will change the architecture of civil aviation
and overturn the core concepts of use (Henderson et al, 1990).
However, unlike manned aircraft, UAV Pilots are generally unaware of other air users
as they fly UAVs from distant Ground Control Stations. Improving their situational
awareness through technological innovation will be key to ensuring safe commercial
operations in civil airspace. In CAP 722, the Civil Aviation Authority defines the requirements
that such a technological solution must reach; able to ‘Sense & Avoid’ other air users to the
same standard that a traditional manned aircraft can ‘See & Avoid’ (2012, p.25). Sense &
Avoid technology will consist of a blend of detection systems, such as the transponder based
Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), a Visual Based Detection System, and Miniature
Radar. It is likely that the end solution will include a mixture of these component
technologies for redundancy reasons.
This critical review will analyse the project to integrate UAVs into commercial
airspace, and focus specifically on the innovation activity in Sense & Avoid systems. I will
show that the progress so far has been positive, but also that the R&D focus has been overly
placed on large UAVs, to the detriment of the market for small UAVs that exists in more
dangerous low-level airspace. I will propose Open Collaborative Innovation as a solution,
reinforced by a case study of a UAV manufacturer called 3DR.
1.1
SYSTEMS MAP
The system map at Figure 1 is intended to provide a wider perspective to an academic
reviewer on the overall construct within which Sense & Avoid innovation will reside. The UK
project forms the core system although 2 exterior systems are also displayed. The first is the
3 of 13
influence of external safety bodies, and the other is the competitive context within which the
UK rests. That is, the country that allows safe UAV integration first, will have the first mover
advantage. The project sub-systems consist of both organisational and technological factors.
1.2
SENSE & AVOID TECHNOLOGY ROAD MAP
The TRM at Figure 2 is based on the multi-layer T-Plan Fast start approach described by
Phaal et al (2004) with some additional features selected from another example described
by Phaal et al that shows how NASA managed component technology in test and
demonstration systems (2004, p.12). The multi-layer approach was chosen because the
successful development of this technology is interlinked with specialised regulatory, strategic
and market requirements. Future dates and objectives are my own projections based on the
development of UAVs and Sense & Avoid technology to date.
1.3
PAST PROJECT TRAJECTORY
To date, the UK has been effective in creating the regulatory environment and strategic
direction to safely integrate UAVs into UK airspace, despite the pressures of EASA, the
European Aviation Safety Agency, who favour a segregated airspace approach (Watts,
2015). Figure 2 shows the project milestones that have been reached since 2006 when the
Government’s UAV council, now known as the Cross Government Working Group, helped to
create a consortium of companies called the Autonomous Systems Technology Related
Airborne Evaluation and Assessment (ASTRAEA) program. ASTRAEA is partially funded by
the government’s Technology Strategy board, now known as InnovateUK, and includes
major UK Aerospace companies and academic institutions. It aims to create the conditions
for safe integration of UAVs into commercial airspace and in its most recent phase,
ASTRAEA is striving to create technical solutions for Sense & Avoid requirements under its
Separation Assurance & Control project (ASTRAEA, N.D.). In 2012, ASTREA successfully
conducted scripted tests of their visual detection based Sense & Avoid system on a manned
aircraft over the Irish Sea. In 2013, ASTRAEA successfully flew the same aircraft equipped
with a Sense & Avoid system on a test flight from Lancashire, to Inverness, remotely piloted
via satellite link from a GCS in Warton, although a human crew was on-board for safety
4 of 13
monitoring purposes. In Figure 2, these achievements are marked as Milestones 3 & 4
respectively. Additionally, in late 2013 General Atomics tested a variant of its MQ-9 UAV with
TCAS and Air to Air Radar for Sense & Avoid tests in domestic US airspace (GA, 2013).
This has been marked as Milestone 5 because the RAF flies the MQ-9 overseas and is
aspiring to bring them to the UK to conduct training.
1.4
CURRENT PROJECT TRAJECTORY
Given the achievements of ASTRAEA and General Atomics, the current innovation trajectory
is positive. To further reinforce this, Figure 2 Objective 1 shows Project CLARA, a plan for
Thales UK to fly a Hermes 450 UAV from Aberporth to a neighbouring civil airport. It will be
the first time that a UAV will have flown as general traffic outside of segregated airspace
(Watts, 2015), however the aircraft involved in this trial will not be equipped with an
advanced Sense & Avoid system, but instead will remain under strict procedural and radar
control in Class A airspace. CAA safety statistics reinforce this course of action but also
shine a light on the trajectory that future innovation must take.
1.5
SAFETY AND THE FUTURE
According to the CAA, an Air Proximity Incident, or Airprox, is when 2 aircraft unintentionally
close within a set safe separation distance. In 2013, only 8 of 172 Airprox incidents occurred
in Class A airspace (CAA, 2013). But the largest market for UAVs is likely to exist in airspace
very different to the low density, highly controlled Class A airspace used for project CLARA
or any of the ASTRAEA trials. Class G airspace is subject to the least restrictions in the UK.
It generally exists below 3000’ and it has the most traffic comprising of military low flying,
recreational aviators, commercial helicopters and emergency service aircraft. The CAA
(2013) reports that 118 of 172 air proximity incidents took place below 3000 feet, including
those in aerodrome restricted areas.
A report by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International on the
potential economic benefit of UAVs in the USA can inform us about the anticipated market
share based upon the UAVs application and, therefore, altitude of operation. Seven of the
twelve listed will be, in the majority of cases, conducted at low altitudes below 3000 feet;
they are Wildfire mapping, Agricultural monitoring, Thermal Infra-red power line surveys,
Aerial Imaging, Aerial Filming, Environmental monitoring and Freight transport (AUVSI,
2013). In my view, these applications will often be met by the Small and Medium Enterprises
shown in the Figure 1 Commercial UAV sub-system, using small autonomous UAVS.
However, larger companies like Amazon’s parcel delivery service could undoubtedly play an
increasing role as well. Although this market is still developing, from CAA statistics alone, the
safety case for more investment in compact See & Avoid technology is compelling.
According to EASA (2015, p.2), 2495 companies in the EU are registered to operate UAVs
weighing less than 150kg. These SMEs are poised to enter the most dangerous and least
controlled airspace above our skies. Meeting the safety challenge this presents is key and
the future part of Figure 2 aims to address this. In Canada, some tests have already been
conducted on a partial small UAV Sense & Avoid system (Sagetech, 2012); with the UK still
focused on large platforms, we are in danger of falling behind the international competition
for the lucrative small UAV market.
1.6 THE WAY AHEAD
To meet Objective 2, the government must redouble efforts to attract R&D in small UAV
operations. As the Transport Minister Robert Goodwill stated when discussing Amazon’s
interest in the UK for testing its drone delivery service, ‘if you want to innovate and you want
to invest in this sort of technology, come to the UK because we’re here to help you’
(Gallagher, 2015). Such R&D will be critical in driving the necessary innovation in Sense &
5 of 13
Avoid technology that is linked to Objective 2 in the Technology Demonstrator portion of the
roadmap. I believe that a Hybrid type of innovation must be developed from the existing
Sense & Avoid component technologies, but who will be best placed to oversee this and how
can it be done?
PART 2
2.0
CRITICAL REVIEW
The aim of this critical review is to assess the extent of innovation in UAV Sense & Avoid
safety systems, and to establish what more needs to be done so UAVs can reach their full
commercial potential. Progress has been positive to date, but has largely been focussed on
Sense & Avoid technology in larger unmanned platforms. But what innovation management
lessons can be learnt from the conduct of the project so far? And how can they be projected
into the next phase in order to meet the requirements for Sense & Avoid in the ever
changing UAV market?
2.1
ASTRAEA AND OPEN INNOVATION
In his definition of Open Innovation, Chesborough et al (2006, p.2) states that:
Open innovation is the true purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to
accelerate internal innovation, and expand markets for external use of innovation.
By this definition, as a collaboration between companies, government and academic
institutions, ASTRAEA is a good example of Open Innovation in action. But it is the latter
part of Chesborough’s definition that warrants further attention. How exactly is ASTRAEA
expanding markets for external use of Sense & Avoid technology? What business model do
the participant companies have in mind? Chesborough et al (2006, p.12) states that:
In Open Innovation, the business model is the cognitive device that focusses the
evaluation of R&D projects within the firm. As a cognitive aide, the business model
filters in projects that “fit” with the model, and selects against those that do not. This
evaluation is not objective; biases can and do exist.
The business models of the firms that operate in ASTRAEA, with the exception of Thales,
are almost exclusively dominated by firms that operate traditionally in the manned aerospace
sector. ASTRAEA, as a partially government funded R&D project, is a good vehicle for these
companies to enter into the lucrative UAV market. Importantly, as stated by the Program
Director, Lambert Dopping-Hepenstal, the companies involved have ‘reasonable hope’ that
Sense & Avoid system developed on ASTRAEA will also be applied to manned aircraft
market as well (ASTRAEA UAS, 2013). This concept was characterised further by a member
of the MoD Air staff, who stated that the civil world will see UAVs adopting the aerospace
equivalent of a high-visibility safety vest, that the manned world will then be obliged to buy
as well (Watts, 2015).
But to what extent could we consider this possible transfer of UAV Sense & Avoid
technology back to the manned aviation world as one of Chesborough’s biases? It is hard to
say for certain, but the project manager must ensure that this doesn’t detract from the
projects principle aim; to integrate UAVs into civil airspace. So how should the innovation
management approach change to focus on the market for smaller UAVs in the low level
environment?
2.2
OPEN COLLABORATIVE INNOVATION
6 of 13
An alternative method for delivering innovation in small UAV Sense & Avoid may come
through the practise of Open Collaborative Innovation. Baldwin et al (2011, p.1399) describe
the traditional view of producer innovators, where the assumption has been that:
Producer developed designs should dominate user-developed designs in most parts
of the economy. This long held view of innovation has, in turn, led to public policies
based on a theory of producer incentives. Producers it is argued, are motivated to
innovate by the expectation of profits.
However, Baldwin et al offer an alternative in the form of Open Collaborative Innovation as a
‘different way to organize human effort’ that, ‘driven by digital and modular technology’, may
‘increasingly compete with and may displace producer innovation in many parts of the
economy’ (2011, p.1399). Baldwin et al define an open collaborative project as involving:
Contributors who share the work of generating a design and also reveal the outputs
from their individual and collective design efforts openly for anyone to use.
Baldwin et al refer to open-source software as a good example of Open Collaborative
Innovation, with LINUX being the obvious example. But some companies have made the
connection between open collaboration software while pursuing a value stream through
application specific hardware. In the UAV market, the most prominent is a company called
3DR.
2.3
3D-ROBOTICS- A CASE STUDY
3DR is a manufacturer of small UAVs that coordinates an online community of open source
software programmers to provide sophisticated firmware for aircraft that are capable of
complex autonomous navigation and aerial imagery missions. In an interview with the 3DR
CEO Chris Anderson, Stuart (2015) describes 3DR as a manufacturer of the future whose
growth has been huge since its inception in 2009, with $20million in hardware sales in 2013.
Anderson describes the innovation strategy of his company as the ‘maker movement’ where
the internet has ‘democratised the tools of invention and of production’ (2015 p.94). He
started his company after founding an online community called DIYDrones. In this
community Anderson rapidly realised that online enthusiasts were ‘matching-or bestingaerospace electronics that had cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars just a decade
earlier. It felt like the future of aviation’ (2015, p.99). 3DR now extracts significant value from
a community of unpaid coding enthusiasts that provide firmware for increasingly elaborate
hardware that is driven forward by the online community. In my own experience as a 3DR
customer and a military UAV and Helicopter pilot, 3DR provide advanced mission planning,
long range telemetry and miniature avionics that would rival, if not exceed the quality of
systems fitted on much more expensive military systems. Stuart describes this as ‘stuff that
used to be military grade technology; you can buy it now at RadioShack’ (2015, p.102).
Although the hardware in 3DR systems is relatively commonplace, it is the sophisticated
open collaboration software that makes this company such a successful innovator, software
that ‘takes years and years of algorithm, software, and data science development’ (2015,
p.103).
2.4
OPEN COLLABORATION AND SENSE & AVOID
An open collaboration style of innovation would offer many advantages for Sense & Avoid
technology in the small UAV market. But how could this be achieved? From a technology
perspective, the compact hardware needed to support an open collaborative project is
developing rapidly. A Canadian company has already tested a TCAS compatible
7 of 13
transponder on a 10kg UAV in 2012 (Sagetech, 2012), and Cho et al (2012) describe a
successful trial of a conflict detection algorithm on a Vision Based detection system applied
to a small UAVs video feed. Additionally, Moses et al (2013) describe a miniature radar
system with a 66m range, proposed for UAVs lighter than 25Kg that are being used for
numerous commercial applications in proximity to manned aircraft. It is clear that compact
hardware is already in development and I believe that with the correct coordination of
hardware alongside open collaboration on software, a hybrid innovation made up of these
component technologies could produce a dominant design and operating system for the
developing small UAV market.
2.5
INNOVATION SYSTEMS
Before considering if the UK could replicate the success of 3DR in a compact Sense & Avoid
project, we should consider the changes required within the overall context of innovation
systems. When building such an innovation system from scratch, Niosi (2011, p.1641)
states:
The building of national, regional and sectoral systems is loaded with uncertainty,
trial and error and tinkering. The simple copying and pasting of institutions and
policies from one context to another will not produce economic development or
innovation.
From this observation we would be wrong to assume that the UK could easily replicate the
innovation culture that formed 3DR, to rapidly establish a UK centric, open collaboration
focussed, compact Sense & Avoid industry start-up. But the open collaborative innovation
approach of 3DR, with its global collaboration on software design, may actually be best
classified as a ‘technology systems’ approach. Horrocks et al (2014) citing Dodgson et al
(2008, p.40–1) state that a technology system is defined by ‘technology rather than national
boundaries and although they are affected by national or regional culture and institutions,
they can also be international in nature’. With this in mind, it is possible that a meaningful
project could be initiated by InnovateUK, if it is prepared to accept the international nature of
the development that follows. This would be a National Innovation Strategy that was so open
in nature, it would draw on global resources to ensure the UK becomes the hub of such
activity, where hardware design, system trials and R&D would be focused on our shores,
perhaps leveraged by the presence of companies like Amazon Air Prime (Amazon, N.D.).
3DR would be an obvious candidate for such a partnership, but the UK has a wealth of
smaller aerospace companies and academic institutions that would be valuable and critical
partners as well.
But to what extent could ASTRAEA and the larger UK Aerospace companies be
involved in such a collaboration? I believe the answer will depend on each company’s stance
on IPR.
2.6
IPR ISSUES
Chesborough et al (2006, p.14) states that ‘IP can sometimes be given away through
publication, or donation’. Unfortunately, it is beyond the scope of this review to debate the
extent to which the defence companies involved in ASTRAEA would be willing to go against
their reputation for secrecy and gift IPR in the manner that Chesborough suggests, but open
innovation literature does assert that it would benefit them if they did. For example, Baldwin
et al (2011, p.1401) state
Evidence has now accumulated that innovators who elect to freely reveal their
innovations can gain significant private benefits-and also avoid some private costs.
With respect to private benefits, innovators that freely reveal their new designs often
8 of 13
find that others then improve or suggest improvements to the innovation to mutual
benefit
On the basis of this, if the ASTRAEA participants were to release their Sense & Avoid IPR
as part of an open collaboration project, we would assume they could also reap the private
benefits and save costs. The concept of others being able to ‘suggest improvements’ would
bring the best mutual benefit to Sense & Avoid algorithms and software, with the value
stream derived from hardware sales that would develop as a result.
2.7
CONCLUSION
This review has found that the UK innovation activity in UAV Sense & Avoid is succeeding
for large UAVs in highly regulated airspace, but that safety statistics and projected usage
would suggest that there is a growing and more urgent requirement for innovation that is
focussed on smaller UAVs operating at lower levels. It is my view that the best method to
conduct this innovation is through the pursuit of open collaborative software development,
alongside an equally focussed and coordinated hardware development project as a
manufacturer’s value stream. Above all, this approach will only succeed if potential
participants understand the benefits of genuinely sharing IPR to push development forward
for mutual benefit. The government has stated that it is keen to have large companies
conducting small UAV commercial activity in UK airspace. It must ensure that our
regulations are permissive, and mobilise InnovateUK to shape the environment, before our
international competitors gain the first mover advantage.
9 of 13
References:
Amazon, (n.d.) ‘Amazon Prime Air’ [Online]. Available at
http://www.amazon.com/b?node=8037720011 (Accessed 25 March 2015)
AUVSI, (2013) ‘The Economic Impact of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in the
United States’ [Online], AUVSI. Available at http://www.auvsi.org/econreport
(Accessed 25 March 2015)
ASTRAEA, (n.d.) ‘ASTRAEA, Separation Assurance and Control’ [Online]. Available at
http://astraea.aero/current-projects-2/separation-assurance-and-co.html (Accessed 25
March 2015)
ASTRAEA Unmanned Aircraft Systems (2013) YouTube video added by Cobham [Online].
Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tPJtDIet4U (Accessed 25 March 2015)
Baldwin, C. von Hippel, E. (2011) ‘Modelling a Paradigm Shift,: Form Producer Innovation to
User and Collaborative Innovation’ Organization Science, vol 22, no 6, pp 1399-1417.
CAA, (2012) ‘Civil Air Publication 722, Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK
Airspace – Guidance’ [Online]. The Stationery Office. Available at
https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%20722%20Sixth%20Edition%20March%202015.pdf
(Accessed 25 March 2015)
CAA, (2013) ‘Analysis of Airprox in UK Airspace-Report Number 29- January 2013 –
December 2013 ’ [Online]. The Stationery Office. Available at
http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/Blue%20Book%2029.pdf (Accessed 25 March
2015)
Chesbrough, H. Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (2006) ‘Open Innovation:
Researching a New Paradigm’, Oxford University Press, pp 1-20.
Cho, S. Huh, S. Shim, D. Choi, H. (2012) ‘Vision-Based Detection and Tracking of Airborne
Obstacles in a Cluttered Environment’ Springer Science and Business Media, vol 69, pp
475-488.
EASA, (2015) ‘Concept of Operation for Drones- A Risk Based Approach to Regualtion of
Unmanned Aircraft’ EASA.
GA, (2013) ‘GA-ASI Successfully Tests SAA System Components aboard Predator B’
[Online]. Available at http://media.ga.com/2013/12/12/ga-asi-successfully-tests-saa-systemcomponents-aboard-predator-b/ (Accessed 25 March 2015)
Gallagher, B. (2015) ‘Amazon may trial drones for parcel delivery’ Independent, 26 Mar
[Online]. Available at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/amazon-may-trialdrones-for-parcel-delivery-10137120.html (Accessed 27 Mar 2015)
Henderson, R. and Clark, K.B. (1990) ‘Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration
of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms‘, Administrative
Science Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 9–30.
10 of 13
Horrocks, I. Walker, S. (2014) T848 Block 1: Technology, Innovation and Management,
Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Moses, A. Matthew, J. Rutherford, M. Valavanis, K (2014). ‘UAV-borne X-band radar for
collision avoidance’. Robotica, 32, pp 97-114
Niosi, J. (2011) ‘Building Innovation Systems: an introduction to the special section’ Oxford
University Press, vol 20, no 6, pp1637-1643.
Phaal, R., Farrukh, C.J.P. and Probert, D.R. (2004) ‘Technology roadmapping –
a planning framework for evolution and revolution’, Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, vol. 71, nos 1–2, pp. 5–26.
Sagetech. (2012) ‘Ottawa Flight Test Demonstrates "Sense and Avoid" Capabilities of UAVs’
22 November [Online]. Available at http://www.sagetechcorp.com/news/ottawa-flight-testdemonstrates-sense-and-avoid-capabilities-of-uavs.cfm#.VRzQRPnF9-5 (Accessed 27 Mar
2015)
Stuart, T (2015) ‘3D Robotics: Disrupting the Drone Market’ California Management Review,
vol 57, nos 2, pp. 91-113.
Watts, A. (2015) Telephone conversation with Tom Burke, 28 March.
11 of 13
Appendix A- Figure 1
12 of 13
Appendix B- Figure 2
13 of 13