Operational Risk Management ASCI 638 - 7.6

Figure 1.  Safety vs. Risk (Long, 2017)

The DJI Phantom 4 Pro is a commercially available sUAS used by hobbyist and professionals alike for aerial video and photography.  For the purpose of this discussion we will focus on the flight characteristics and safety features of the Phantom 4. It is capable of autonomous flight and obstacle avoidance (Phantom 4, 2017).

            The Phantom 4 has built in GPS, barometer, forward vision, downward vision, rearward vision, two ultrasonic sensors, and infrared systems on both sides.  These systems are combined for obstacle avoidance and navigation and can be used independently if needed. For instance, if flying indoors, without GPS signal, the vision system will hold a stable hover without inputs from the operator (Phantom 4, 2017).

            There are three Return-to-Home (RTH) modes of flight; Failsafe RTH, Smart RTH and Low Battery RTH. For all modes obstacle avoidance is active and the Phantom will adjust altitude if needed. Before any flight a “home” point is established for the Phantom 4, this is the point of launch. Failsafe RTH will enable whenever link with the controller is lost for 3 seconds, it will retrace its route of flight back home, ensuring a safe route of flight. Smart RTH is user activated with a button on the controller and is used to automatically fly back to the home point. Low Battery RTH is automatically engaged when the battery is too low for continued flight. The Phantom will internally calculate the time of flight required to return to home at all times, when the battery is low enough continued flight may affect safe flight Low Battery RTH engages and flies the Phantom home (Phantom 4, 2017).

            The Phantom visually scanned and remembers the terrain when the home point was established. During any RTH feature if the landing terrain doesn’t match the terrain in the memory the Phantom will hold hover and wait for user input to confirm landing. During any landing the Phantom is visually scanning the landing zone, if the Phantom determines it isn’t’ suitable it will automatically hold a hover awaiting confirmation from the operator to land. It will hold that hover till confirmed to land or until the battery is too low, at which point it will land (Phantom, 2017).

            An Operational Risk Management (ORM) assessment was completed for the Phantom 4 in order to ensure safe flight, and mitigate any risks identified.  This includes a Preliminary Hazard List (PHL), Preliminary Hazard Assessment (PHA), and Operational Hazard Review and Analysis (OHR&A).

            A PHL is a “brainstorming tool used to identify initial safety issues early in the UAS operation” (Barnhart, Shappee & Marshall, 2011).  Once a hazard is identified the probability and severity need to be established. Probability would be frequent (A), probable (B), occasional (C), remote (D) or improbable (E).   The severity is listed as catastrophic (I), critical (II), marginal (III) or negligible (IV) (Barnhart, Shappee & Marshall, 2011). 

            A PHA is completed after the PHL. A PHA is where we ask what can be done to reduce or eliminate the hazard identified in the PHL. In regard to probability we want to reduce the or eliminate the possibility of occurrence, to decrease the exposure to the risk. See Figure 2 for an example of a PHL/A for Phantom 4 operations. It should be noted this is not an all-inclusive list, this is for illustration purposes. An all-inclusive list would be developed and include every possible risk for a specific flight. For example, if using the Phantom to record a local charity run there may be additional factors such as over flight of a crowd or public space, or perhaps other sUASs in the area. If recording wildlife there could be risks of interaction with the wildlife, loosing the Phantom in a body of water, or airspace restriction if the land has any particular designation. If weather is a risk it would be seasonally dependent and where the flight is occurring, mountains versus an open plane.  

Figure 2. PHL/A

            The OHR&A “is used to identify and evaluate hazards throughout the entire operation and its stages (planning, staging, launching, flight, and recovery)” (Barnhart, Shappee & Marshall, 2011).  Risks identified in the PHL/A may also appear in the OHR&A, but can include additional risks such as human factors. The mitigating action from the PHL/A is used as the Action Review in the OHR&A tool. If the action was effective at mitigating risk no change is needed, however if it is not a new mitigating action needs to be developed. See Figure 3 for an example of an OHR&A for a flight.

Figure 3. OHR&A

            An ORM serves two purposes. First is to provide a “quick look at the operation before committing to the flight activity (a go/no-go decision)” (Barnhart, Shappee & Marshall, 2011).  The second is to “allows safety and management of real-time information needed to continually monitor the overall safety of the operation” (Barnhart, Shappee & Marshall, 2011).  This is meant to be an aid in deciding to conduct the flight, not the only means to deciding. See Figure 4 for an example. If anything changes during the flight, such as unexpected people show up to your location or weather is not as planned for, the risk would need to be updated appropriately in real time.

Figure 4. ORM

References

Long, R. (2017, December 13). The Great Safety is a Choice Delusion. Retrieved February 25, 2018, from https://safetyrisk.net/the-great-safety-is-a-choice-delusion/

Phantom 4 User Manual. (2017, October). Retrieved February 26, 2018, from https://dl.djicdn.com/downloads/phantom_4_pro/20171017/Phantom_4_Pro_Pro_Plus_User_Manual_EN.pdf

Barnhart, R. K., Shappee, E., & Marshall, D. M. (2011). Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft Systems. London, GBR: CRC Press. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu

Automated Takeoff and Landing ASCI 638 - 6.6

Figure 1. Otto Pilot, the worlds greatest autopilot (Airplane!, 2017)

Manned Aircraft Autoland Airbus A330

For the Autoland system to be operational there are several requirements:

·       Functioning autopilot

·       2/3 functioning hydraulic systems

·       Functioning autothurst

·       Radio Altimeter

·       Nose Wheel Steering System

·       Autobrake system

·       Two functioning ILS receivers

·       Functioning instruments to pilots can monitor airspeed, attitude, altitude

·       Announcement capability so the aircraft can notify the pilots if something is wrong

The Autoland for the A330 can execute the full approach to the runway to include braking and steering to stay on the runway after landing without pilot input. The A330 uses it’s fly-by-wire system to control rudder, flaps and slats to adjust the aircrafts airspeed/altitude/attitude following an ILS approach to the ground (How Does a Plane, 2017).   The auto thruster will retard the throttle on the engines after landing, but the pilots are required per the checklist to still manually retard the controls so thrust levers match thrust demand. Announcement systems are required so the pilot is aware of any issues, such as a failure of the autobraking system, the pilot would then be required to manually control the brakes, same is true for the Nose Wheel Steering System (Autoland 2017).

The Autoland feature should be fully automated as it currently is. It should also be able to be disabled by the pilots at any time in order to manually conduct the landing, this is the case currently. It should also maintain its alert/announcement capability to warn the pilots if there is an issue and the Autoland system may not be functioning properly.

Unmanned Aircraft DJI Phantom 4

The automatic landing feature on the DJI Phantom 4 will automatically occur under certain situations. When the low battery level warning activates an audible alarm is sent through the controller for the user to hear.  The Phantom will return to home automatically if no action is taken by the operator after 10 seconds. “Home” is a GPS location set by the user during the start up procedure of the Phantom. The operator can cancel the return to home if they would like, but when the battery is low enough, critical low, the Phantom determines it only has the power to descend from its current altitude.  The Phantom uses 2 ultrasonic sensors and 4 monocular sensors to detect and avoid obstacles during any return to home flight, as well as normal flight. The sensors can only pick up obstacles 60° off the nose and 50° below.  If an obstacle is detected 65 feet ahead it will stop and hover, then ascend to at least 16 feet above the obstacle, then continue its designated path (Phantom 4, 2016).

This system benefits from being automated since it allows more users to be able to fly a drone with little training, increasing the enjoyment for many and allowing those who never thought they could fly a drone to be able to. This is also a safety feature since the battery low return to home feature prevents the operator from accidently crashing the Phantom because of a low battery. Collision avoidance and return to home are excellent selling points for automation and should be kept on all future models of the Phantom.

  

References

How Does a Plane Land on Autopilot? (2017, February 16). Retrieved February 18, 2018, from https://thepointsguy.com/2017/02/how-a-plane-lands-on-autopilot/

Autoland. (2017, September 22). Retrieved February 18, 2018, from https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Autoland

Phantom 4 User Manual. (2016, March). Retrieved February 18, 2018, from https://dl.djicdn.com/downloads/phantom_4/en/Phantom_4_User_Manual_en_v1.0.pdf

Airplane! (1980). (2017, August 20). Retrieved February 18, 2018, from https://www.moviehousememories.com/airplane-1980/

Shift Work Schedule ASCI 638 - 5.6

Figure 1 Night Shift (Safari Signs, 2016)

I have been hired as a human factors consultant for an MQ-1B Medium Altitude, Long Endurance (MALE) UAS squadron of the United States Air Force (USAF). This squadron conducts missions 24/7, 365 days a year providing armed, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) to ground forces in a conflict zone. In order to accomplish this mission, the UAS crews have been separated into 4 teams and put onto a continuous shift work schedule of 6 days on, 2 days off. The Squadron Commander is concerned because the UAS crews have been reporting extreme fatigue while conducting operations and complained of inadequate sleep due to their current shift schedule. It is my job to analyze the current shift rotation, Figure 2, and the number of days on and off per week, and, based upon your research, design the schedule that you think will allow the squadron to optimize operations, while improving the fatigue issues that the crews are reporting.

Figure 2. Current Schedule

            Circadian rhythm is the internal biological clock that regulates our body functions, based on our wake/sleep cycle.  When deprived of time cues most people gravitate towards a 25-hour circadian cycle. Any time this is disrupted, such as shift work, it can have physiological and behavioral impacts, known as circadian rhythm disruption (Circadian Rhythm, n.d.).  The circadian rhythm is reset by exposure to bright light, especially sunlight. When a night shift worker is driving home in daylight the bright morning sun resets the internal clock, making it difficult for the person to simply go home and go to sleep. The disparity between biological days, 25-hour, and solar days, 24-hours, drives the recommendation that rotating shifts move towards a longer day. Shift rotations should be moved to later shifts, instead of earlier shifts (FAA Shift Work, n.d.).

            I propose a 2-2-2 plan for improving the shift work.  This would be an 8-day cycle for the 4 crews working 8.5 hour days, Figure 3. The first 30 minutes of each shift overlaps with the previous shift to ensure adequate time for shift turnover procedures. The proposed change would be 2 day shifts, 2 swing shifts, 2 night shifts and then 2 days off (Miller, 2012). This schedule follows the concept of moving shift rotations forward, allowing for our natural 25-hour circadian cycle.  This rotation keeps the circadian rhythm in a daytime orientation, it is not in a state of constant disruption. Many consecutive night shifts may cause chronic sleep deprivation. It also provides more free evenings per week to the operators, allowing more regular contact with friends and family (Managing 24/7, n.d.).

Figure 3. Proposed Schedule

            The Squadron Commander also needs to implement training on fatigue, fatigue management, stress, stress management and sleep hygiene. Educated operators are more likely able to effectively cope with a changing schedule if they are aware of coping mechanisms. Keeping the work lighting bright will help circadian rhythms be in sync with working hours, so that night employees are not working in darker rooms and keeping their bodies on a solar circadian rhythm.  Having fridges available for the operators to bring food from home, possibly with a small kitchenette. This would allow for healthier food to be an option, instead of relying on food from vending machines.  Also allowing or encouraging discussions with flight physicians if people are having issues sleeping, to potentially prescribe and monitor sleep aids as needed (Miller, 2012).

  

References

Federal Aviation Administration. (n.d.). Circadian Rhythm Disruption and Flying [Brochure]. Retrieved February 10, 2018, from https://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/Circadian_Rhythm.pdf

FAA Shift Work and Scheduling. (n.d.). Retrieved February 10, 2018, from https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/maintenance_hf/library/documents/media/human_factors_maintenance/human_factors_guide_for_aviation_maintenance_-_chapter_4.shiftwork_and_scheduling.pdf

Managing 24/7. (n.d.). Retrieved February 10, 2018, from http://www.circadian.com/solutions-services/publications-a-reports/newsletters/managing-247-enewsletter/managing-247-speed-of-rotation-from-day-shift-to-night-shift.html

Miller, J. C. (2012, April). White Paper: Shift Plans with Seven Consecutive Shifts. Retrieved February 10, 2018, from https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/crm/docs/shift_plans_with_seven.pdf

Safari Signs. (2016, May 26). Retrieved February 10, 2018, from https://www.pinterest.com/pin/504825439462650568/

UAS Beyond Line of Sight Communication ASCI 638 - 4.6

Figure 1. Predator Communication (Reading Mission, n.d.)

The RQ-1A/MQ-1 Predator UAS is capable of beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS) communications.  The Predator has been present for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while being controlled from Nellis Air Force Base in California. “Predator is equipped with reconnaissance equipment and weapons to provide persistent Intelligence gathering, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) capability. It is designed to perform over-the-horizon, long-endurance, medium-altitude surveillance, reconnaissance, and weapons delivery on mission endurance of up to 40 hours” (RQ-1A, n.d.).  The Predator was used to circle over both Iraq and Afghanistan conducting ISR operations. The concept is to move data rather than people; this shortens the kill chain and reduces the opportunity for targets to flee (RQ-1A, n.d.). 

The Predator is capable of both BLOS and line-of-sight (LOS) communications. LOS communicants are used within 100 NM and allow the UAS to be launched and recovered. When the Predator is to operate BLOS communication between the UAS and the ground control station (GCS) is done via Ku-band satellite communications (BLOS, 2016).   Two different GCSs are needed for this operation. The launch and recovery crew element (LRE) use LOS to launch and recover. The mission control element (MCE) will then take control and use BLOS for the mission operations. Both LRE and MCE must have the GCSs set up with the same parameters for the Predator before a handover can take place (MQ-1, 2015).

            The infrastructure for the Predator is extensive. Each Combat Air Patrol (CAP) consists of 4 air vehicles, the local GCS for LRE, potentially a second GCS for MCE and the satellite used for communication. Each CAP includes around 170 personnel which includes; 40 mission control personnel, seven pilots and seven sensor operators, 60 personnel for launch and recovery, which also has pilots and sensor operators and 60 personnel for exploitation of information and around 15 maintenance personnel (Wheeler, 2012).  The notion of “unmanned” is misleading when it takes around 170 personnel to operate 4 Predators.

            The main advantage of the BLOS operations is the ability of the Predator to fully utilize it’s roughly 40-hour endurance. It can be flown anywhere in the world from any location, as mentioned above it was flying in Iraq and Afghanistan from California. The LRE crews were locally located, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the MCE crews were in California. Less military personnel need to be placed in the vicinity of the battle, some of the pilots can be left at home minimizing their stress and the stress on their families. Another advantage is the video feed can be fed back to any ground commander anywhere, so they can make real time decisions to shape the battle field with live video. 

             A civilian industry that could benefit from BLOS operations is natural resource management. This includes wildlife management personnel and land/forestry management personnel. Tracking and monitoring wildlife is a large undertaking and has benefited from the use of small drones already, but these are limited to LOS operations only.

From 2013 to 2015 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), conducted surveys in Alaska where the manned flight proved to be cheaper than the UAS.  Sea Lion population was counted in the Aleutian Islands in Alaska by a Twin Otter and an APH-22 Hexacopter (Christie, Gilbert, Brown, Hatfield & Hanson,  2016).  Due to the Hexacopter being required to stay Line of Sight (LOS) it only had a range of 0.8km with the longest flight being 16 minutes.  The Hexacopter had to be launched from a ship sailing from island to island. Over the course of two months it surveyed 30 different sites, provided high quality images due to flight altitude of 150 feet and averaged a cost of $1700 per site visited. It could access areas the Twin Otter could not due to inclement weather since minimum of 750 feet ceilings are required, remoteness or a lack of suitable landing sites (Christie, et al., 2016).

In contrast, the Twin otter visited 201 sites, provided lower quality images due to its flight altitude but averaged a cost of $400 per site since it surveyed 171 more sites (Christie, et al., 2016).  Both aircraft could meet to objective of NOAA to count the population of the Sea Lions, but both have limitations.  Currently NOAA uses both systems, the UAS augments the Twin Otter by providing higher quality images or surveying inaccessible sites (Fritz, Sweeney, Towell, Gelatt, 2016). If NOAA could use a UAS such as the Predator the research could potentially be done more efficiently using only one platform instead of a Twin Otter, Hexacpoter and the ship required for the Hexacopter. Of course, the overall price tag of a complex Predator system may prevent any non-governmental agency, or an agency with a smaller budget, from using it. However, to concept and abilty to operate BLOS would be an advantage.

References

BLOS - Beyond Line of Sight. (2016, July 29). Retrieved February 4, 2018, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/beyond-line-sight-operations-brandon-fowler/

Christie, K., Gilbert, S., Brown, C., Hatfield, M., & Hanson, L. (2016). Unmanned Aircraft Systems in Wildlife Research: Current and Future Applications of a Transformative Technology. Frontiers of Ecological Environments, 14, 241-251. doi:10.1002/fee.1281

Fritz, L., K. Sweeney, R. Towell, and T. Gelatt. 2016. Aerial and Shipbased Surveys of Steller Sea Lions (Eumetopias Jubatus) Conducted in Alaska in June-July 2013 through 2015, and an Update on the Status and Trend of the Western Distinct Population Segment in Alaska. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-321, 72 p. doi:10.7289/V5/TM-AFSC-321.

MQ-1 Predator Beyond Line of Sight Operations. (2015, February 3). Retrieved February 04, 2018, from https://knghthwksuas.weebly.com/uas-blogs/mq-1-predator-beyond-line-of-sight-operations

Reading Mission Control Data of a Predator. (n.d.). Retrieved February 04, 2018, from http://gbppr.dyndns.org/~gbpprorg/nfl/predator-drone-readout-2009.html

RQ-1A/MQ-1 Predator. (n.d.). Retrieved February 04, 2018, from http://defense-update.com/products/p/predator.htm

Wheeler, W. (2012, February 28). 2. The MQ-9's Cost and Performance. Retrieved February 04, 2018, from http://nation.time.com/2012/02/28/2-the-mq-9s-cost-and-performance/