The Future of Unmanned Aircraft

The Future of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Scott Leishman

Embry Riddle Aeronautical University-Worldwide
ASCI 637

               When I think of what the future holds for unmanned aircraft I begin to think about integration, what impact it will have, what we could expect to see, and future legislation. In addition to this though, I also think about the growth of this market and its potential economic impact. A few years ago the idea of having “drones” in the airspace was a fantasy, and now it has become a reality, from keeping constant surveillance on our borders, to delivering beer to those who don’t want to go out to get it. According to the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), these futuristic UAS often seen as a privacy threat will create $82 billion in economic impact over the 10-year span from 2015 to 2025. In response to outcries from industry experts that the U.S. is lagging in the international market, Fairfax, Va.-based consultant Teal Group projects industry sales from 2014 onward will total to $89 billion by 2023, yet the U.S. has not even entered that market commercially (Bryan, 2014). Other areas of the industry that could see a big boost include areas of detect-sense-and-avoid technologies. In the United States this is one major issue regarding integration. The FAA recently made an announcement that makes it mandatory to register drones. On December 14, 2015 the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced a streamlined and user-friendly web-based aircraft registration process for owners of small unmanned aircraft (UAS) weighing more than 0.55 pounds (250 grams) and less than 55 pounds (approx. 25 kilograms) including payloads such as on-board cameras (Federal Aviation Administration, 2015). With this registration requirement and an improvement of detect-sense-and-avoid technologies we can realistically expect legislation to loosen its current view on drone use, but until they have full integration of the airspace, many benefits will be lost. In the future most nearly the next 5-10 years we could expect drones to serve in roles that they are not currently operating in, things such as search and rescue, firefighting, non-lethal police force, and other areas. For now the future is uncertain, but one constant that remains is that drones are a world changer, and as new legislation as created and new technology emerges, we can expect to see the economic impacts and benefits associated with drone use.

“Many scientists parallel unmanned systems today to where we were with ‘horseless carriages’ back in 1909-1910, at the start of something so big we can only wrap our minds around what it is not. That is, automobiles and the resulting mechanization didn’t just become change industry and warfare, it also […] led to the requirement of new laws, ‘traffic laws.’ The point here is that every so often in history, the emergence of a new technology changes our world.”

– Peter Singer, Ph.D. Senior Fellow and Director 21st Century Defense Initiative The Brookings Institution

Works Cited

Bryan, C. (2014, April 22). Avionics Magazine. Retrieved from The Future of Unmanned Flight: http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/military/The-Future-of-Unmanned-Flight_81910.html#.VndO4BUrKhc

Federal Aviation Administration. (2015, December 14). Press Release – FAA Announces Small UAS Registration Rule. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=19856

Statement of Peter Singer, Ph.D., Senior Fellow and Director, 21st Century Defense

Initiative, The Brookings Institution, before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, March 23, 2010.

Precision Agriculture, Its for the Drones!

One area that unmanned aircraft are emerging in is the area of precision agriculture. Manned aircraft whether they are fixed wings or helicopters have been used in agriculture for an extensive amount of time. These systems have worked great, but have not been entirely accurate. A system that is being used to replace those manned systems is the PrecisionHawk. Utilizing the PrecisionHawk, those choosing to use that system can get 3D Terrain mapping, plant height, weed detection, plant counting, canopy cover, crop health indexes, and seasonal monitoring.  Doing this through a conventional means is not always an easy task, or just simply too time consuming. When you look at big scale agriculture, such as soy fields, utilizing an unmanned aircraft is more practical. Because of the onboard sensors that are included with the PrecisionHawk, things like nitrogen deficiencies or chlorophyll deficiencies, undetectable by human sight, can be detected. The overall operating cost is much lower, and the need for a customized manned aircraft that could do the same, is taken out of the equation. A manned aircraft could do almost the same thing, but would need to incorporate all of these sensors, which are not nearly as convenient or practical as they are on a 3lb. unmanned aircraft.  Corn, soybean and wheat farmers could save an estimated $1.3 billion annually by using drones to increase crop yields and reduce input costs. The ability to increase crop yield, and save on producing a higher yield are just one of the many benefits that utilizing an unmanned aircraft can provide.

               Another system that was created that provides precision agriculture was created by Agriborix, which created the EnduroQuad. The six-pound quad-copter can fly a lawnmower pattern over 160 acres in 20-25 minutes. The near infrared camera that comes with this system can take 400-500 images at a resolution of 5 cm per pixel, which is small enough to isolate an individual plant. These systems are designed to help make recommendations for farmers. With these recommendations the farmers can decide what areas of their crop need to be adjusted, the overall idea is to cut down on environmental impact, reduce waste, and increase crop yield.  The overall cost benefit that many farmers are seeing are as much as $12.00 an acre as compared to using a manned aircraft. This overall monetary gain, along with a higher yield output make for a great argument in why utilizing an unmanned aircraft are beneficial.

References

BETTER DATA FORSMARTER BUSINESS DECISIONS. (n.d.). Retrieved November 30, 2015, from http://www.precisionhawk.com/

Doering, C. (2015, July 21). Growing use of drones poised to transform agriculture. Retrieved November 30, 2015, from http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2015/07/21/drones-farm-savings-agriculture-millions/30486487/

Wihbey, J. (n.d.). Agricultural drones change the way we farm - The Boston Globe. Retrieved November 30, 2015, from https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/08/22/agricultural-drones-change-way-farm/WTpOWMV9j4C7kchvbmPr4J/story.html#comments

Separation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Separation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Scott E. Leishman
ASCI 637 Unmanned Aero Sys Ops & Payloads

Embry Riddle Aeronautical University-Worldwide

One of the largest concerns with integration as it relates to unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) is safety. As part of the safety discussion it is important to address the separation of unmanned aircraft systems from other unmanned aircraft in addition to separation from manned aircraft.

“The ability to maintain adequate separation between aircraft is a prerequisite for the safe integration of unmanned aircraft into the National Airspace System (NAS).While safe separation from other aircraft can generally be assured through standard air traffic control (ATC) operations in operations under instrument flight rules (IFR) and instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), there will be times in which UAS may be flying under visual flight rules (VFR) (or a corresponding designation) in which the detect, see and avoid (DSA) capabilities are essential (McCarley, 2005).”  

 So this leads us to ask how can the separation of unmanned aircraft be monitored and maintained (among other unmanned aircraft and manned aircraft) in the NAS?

One way to monitor and maintain separation of aircraft is through the use of air traffic control services. The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision between aircraft operating in the NAS and to organize and expedite the flow of traffic. Controllers such as myself use various tools to accomplish this mission. One tool that is used is through the use of radio detection and ranging or RADAR. This is a fairly straightforward approach to separation where the air traffic controller has a RADAR scope and observes a “target” this target is displayed as a blip on a scope which in turn simulates an aircraft, this is called a primary target. There is also a secondary block of information that is displayed next to the primary target which displays the aircraft’s speed, altitude, and squawk code. Controllers use this information to separate aircraft from known and/or observed conflicts.  While controllers often separate aircraft using this method it is not always used, and it is not always a requirement to have air traffic control services provided. So we must ask what other ways can we separate unmanned aircraft from manned aircraft and other unmanned aircraft? This leads to the discussion about DSA technology. The UAS have to be able to detect, sense, and avoid other UAS as well as manned aircraft. One way manned aircraft are accomplishing this is through the use of Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B). From the NextGen Implementation plan of 2015 ADS-B is:

“The more precise, satellite-based successor to radar. ADS-B Out uses GPS to determine an aircraft’s location, airspeed and other data. It broadcasts that information to a network of ground stations (which relays the data to air traffic controllers) and to nearby aircraft equipped to receive the data via ADS-B In. ADS-B In provides operators of properly equipped aircraft with weather and traffic information delivered directly to the cockpit (Huerta, "NextGen Implementation Plan 2015").”

Future users will be required to be equipped with ADS-B out by 2020 but will be a requirement only for those aircraft operating at or above 10,000 feet. This does not resolve the conflict for aircraft operating at lower altitudes which is one of the questions that are being asked as part of the integration process.  At least 14 companies, including Google, Amazon, Verizon and Harris, have signed agreements with NASA to help devise the first air-traffic system to coordinate small, low-altitude drones, which the agency calls the Unmanned Aerial System Traffic Management (Levin, July 24,2015, para.5).

Another technology that could be used by unmanned aircraft is the terminal collision avoidance system (TCAS) but the problem with using this “manned” aircraft technology is that it is much too large for use in small unmanned aircraft. This lack of sufficient technology to cover all categories of unmanned aircraft is troubling because we are not able to take advantage of integrating all unmanned aircraft safely. Without the introduction of newer technologies, those wishing to use UAS not capable of detecting, sensing, and avoiding other aircraft, will find themselves extremely restricted under the proposed rules regarding integration.

Alternatives that appear to be solution include systems like Low altitude Tracking and Avoidance System (LATAS).  

“Current aviation technology is unable to locate and track drones due to their small size and the low altitudes at which they fly. This makes it difficult for air traffic controllers to manage an increasing number of commercial and hobbyist drones while maintaining the safest airspace in the world” (LATAS, “LATAS Brings Order”, n.d., para.2)

“Operating over the world-wide cellular networks and satellites, the LATAS (Low Altitude Traffic and Airspace Safety) platform connects leading airspace management technologies, such as sense and avoid, geo-fencing and aircraft tracking, into a service package for commercial and recreational drone operators as well as regulators and air traffic controllers (LATAS, “Say hello to LATAS”, n.d., para.1)”

This DSA need stems from those users wishing to utilize their UAS beyond line of sight, and having these technologies will help to allow those users to do so. Because there is not a defined method of separation, legislature will be required to define what technology is acceptable, and until it has done so UAS will continue to suffer the consequences and be limited to line of sight operations for those UAS that are unable to accommodate technology that would allow them to operate beyond line of sight, such as TCAS, and ADS-B. Questions that still remain to be answered will be are UAS tracked by the same equipment the FAA has ordered traditional aircraft to install by 2020, known as ADS-B? Or will the nation’s cellular network be adapted for UAS monitoring? Additionally will independent recreational fliers, who are now exempt from most drone regulations, be required to adhere to new rules? How will the system handle rogue operators who don’t cooperate? Without answering these questions and creating sufficient technology, advancing UAS into the future will have hindered progress.

VIDEO LINKS

References

Huerta, M. (2015, May 1). NextGen Implementation Plan 2015. Retrieved September 2, 2015, from https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/media/NextGen_Implementation_Plan-2015.pdf

Latas. (n.d.). Retrieved November 7, 2015, from http://flylatas.com/

Levin, A. (2015, July 24). Google Wants a Piece of Air-Traffic Control for Drones. Retrieved November 7, 2015, from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-24/google-has-way-to-unclog-drone-filled-skies-like-it-did-the-web

McCarley, J., & Wickens, C. (2005, April 1). Human Factors Implications of UAVs in the National Airspace. Retrieved November 2, 2015, from http://www.tc.faa.gov/logistics/grants/pdf/2004/04-G-032.pdf

ASCI 637 Unmanned Aero Sys Ops and Payloads (Strengths and Weakness of Unmanned Aircraft Systems)

The unmanned aircraft system (UAS) I am reviewing for this blog entry is the ScanEagle by Boeing Insitu. “ScanEagle provides persistent daytime and nighttime intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) in some of the most extreme environments in the world.” (Insitu, n.d., para 1)

This platform has its presence in the ISR environment and has been used as such since 2004. More recently this platform has been developed to survey crops because of the payloads it has available. It is a system that is flexible and can go from keeping an eye on enemies to informing farmers what crops need more pesticide (precision agriculture). Another unique ability this UAS has is that it doesn’t require a runway for takeoff, as it is launched via a Mark 4 launcher, additionally it can be recovered without a runway or the use of nets via a hook type system called SkyHook.  This ability allows it the UAS to be operated virtually anywhere, and in a variety of environments. It also allows the UAS to have an assortment of mission sets whether they are required for combat, search and rescue, or precision agriculture, it is a system that delivers. From their website http://www.insitu.com/images/uploads/product-cards/Scaneagle_OptionsAndCapabilities_ProductCard_PR041615_1.pdf  the sensor options for this particular UAS are as follows:

§  Electro-optic imager: For high-resolution daytime imagery.

o     1.1°–25° field of view

§  36x continuous zoom

§  EO900 turret: Picture-in-picture daytime imagery from two imagers, allowing operators to focus on and maintain positive identity for objects of interest.

o     .3°–48.7° field of view

§   170x continuous zoom from one high-resolution imager

§   MWIR camera: For quality thermal imaging for nighttime and low-visibility operations.

o    2°–25° field of view

o   12.5x continuous zoom

§   Dual Imager turret: Includes an EO (Electro-Optical) and MWIR (Midwave Infared) camera and laser marker for easy transition from daytime to nighttime missions.

o   MWIR  2°–25° field of view

§  12.5x continuous zoom

o   EO      1.1°–25° field of view

§  36x continuous zoom

Strengths of the ScanEagle :

•        The size of the system (the UAS, and the Launch and recovery system) and the crew is smaller and more mobile than in the case of High altitude long endurance (HALE) and Medium altitude long endurance UAS such as the Predator or Global Hawk who fulfill many of the same ISR requirements 
• The aircraft can be launched and recovered in any terrain, including naval ships. 
•   Due to lower operational altitude, the camera’s field of view 1.1°- 25° (Insitu-Capabilities, n.d.) has smaller footprint than one MALE and HALE UAS and therefor offers more details than sensors mounted on bigger platforms

Weaknesses of the ScanEagle:

• ·       The military uses ScanEagle for the EO/IR cameras specifically, which limits the system’s remote sensing capabilities to visible light spectrum
• ·       Because the maximum payload weight is 7.5 lb. (Institu-Capabilities,n.d.) payload options become limited and therefore restricted to sensors that are smaller and lightweight

Overall this platform provides a great option for civilians and military alike, and with newer technology being developed like LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), this system will see continued success. To mitigate the issues of payload weight it is suggested increase the systems overall payload capacity, or research alternatives to payloads to meet customer demands. It has been suggested that the new ScanEagle version 2 allows for greater power to be used for payloads (60 watts upgraded to 100 watts and 150 watts) but will come at a cost of lessened endurance (24+ hours, down to less than 16) (Cavas, 2013, para 5-7) which could pose some problems if the system was originally designed for long endurance type missions.

References

Cavas, C. (2014, October 31). Insitu Launches New ScanEagle 2 UAS. Retrieved October 29, 2015, from http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20141031/DEFREG01/310310034/Insitu-Launches-New-ScanEagle-2-UAS

Insitu. (n.d.). Retrieved October 29, 2015, from http://www.insitu.com/systems/scaneagle

Insitu-Product Capabilities. (n.d.). Retrieved October 29, 2015, from http://www.insitu.com/images/uploads/product-cards/Scaneagle_OptionsAndCapabilities_ProductCard_PR041615_1.pdf

Case Analysis effectiveness

               For the last assignment in my course ASCI 530 at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University we were tasked with doing a case analysis of an issue as it relates to unmanned aircraft. I chose to do a piece on integration of UAS into the National Airspace System. The case analysis approach appears to be an effective means in researching a perceived problem and has a very step by step approach. First we need to create an issue statement, which is a general overview of the perceived issue. The next step was to identify how significant that issue was, which is in essence the heart and soul of the analysis. The next step was to create alternative actions, this is an area where we are allowed to be creative and are encouraged to do so, and come up with solutions that could eliminate the perceived issues. The final step was suggesting a recommendation based on our analysis of the issue. Overall I felt that this was an effective means of arriving at a solution. Recently an area where this I could see as applicable in the field would be our current runway shutdown that NAS Jacksonville has been attempting to complete for years. The case analysis I would chose to do would be issues regarding when the runway opens back up and what that means to the controllers who have not controlled aircraft in over a year essentially. I think utilizing the case analysis approach in this regard would be extremely useful in detailing out all the perceived issues with the lack of proficiency training that most of the air traffic controllers I work with are used to.  Another area where a case analysis could be useful would be in looking at a very specific technology, such as sense-and-avoid technology for unmanned aircraft. I think doing this would help to address issues after doing a request for proposal, or vise-versa.

               In the future I think that a case analysis could be more effective as a team concept, groups of two or three people doing a project of this magnitude can become overwhelming and in the aviation industry it almost always seems that groups are the norm. This would be a more effective use of the case analysis as people can be extremely focused on one detail of the project (issue, alternative actions, etc.) rather than try to do all of the pieces together. I think establishing this line of communication would lead to better outcomes on future project proposals. Even moving forward in a career, I think having small teams focus on doing a particular project would be the most effective means to come up with an ideal solution. As the old adage goes “two minds are greater than one.” For utilizing this in a university setting I would recommend having a list of perceived problems for specific coursework. Unmanned systems is something I am not yet familiar with, but am trying to “master” those concepts, which is where I think having the industry experts that are teaching that coursework would certainly have a better idea of perceived problems that could be researched further. Overall it is an  effective means to researching a project, and is applicable in both a university setting and a work related setting, the context that would change would be how that project is setup, ultimately I see a project being better suited for a small group. 

The Guardian Unmanned Aircraft System

Overview

            This request for proposal is to develop an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) capable of executing safe transportation and delivery of medical equipment to first responders in areas affected by a natural disaster. This particular UAS will need to be capable of getting into and out of small areas where a fixed wing type of aircraft is not a plausible solution. For purposes such as this, a helicopter type design is the most suitable design and will be the one that is implemented.  The UAS will be named The Guardian and will be composed of a network of UAS and ground control stations (GCS).

Derived Requirements

1.    Air vehicle requirment

1.1.   Shall be capable of hover flight

1.2.   Shall be capable of flight up to 500 feet altitude above ground level (AGL)

1.3.   Shall be capable of sustained flight (at loiter speed) in excess of one hour

1.4.   Shall be capable of covering an operational radius of one mile

1.5.   Shall be deployable and on station (i.e., in air over mission area) in less than 15 minutes

1.6.   Shall be capable of manual and autonomous operation

1.7.   Shall provide capture of telemetry, including altitude, magnetic heading, latitude/longitude position, and orientation (i.e., pitch, roll, and yaw)

1.8.  Shall provide power to payload, telemetry sensors, and data-link

1.9.   Shall provide capability to orbit (i.e., fly in circular pattern around) or hover over an object of interest

1.10.                 Shall be capable of  carrying at a minimum 50 pounds (lbs)

2.    Payload

2.1. Shall be capable of color daytime video operation up to 500 feet AGL

2.2. Shall be capable of infrared (IR) video operation up to 500 feet AGL

2.3. Shall be interoperable with C2 and data-link

2.4. Shall use power provided by air vehicle element

3.    Cost

3.1 Shall cost less than $150,000(Equipment cost only)

Test Requirements

1.    Air vehicle requirement

1.1            Test air vehicle for hover capability

1.2            Test air vehicle for altitude capability

1.3            Test air vehicle for sustained flight capability

1.4            Test air vehicle for operational radius capability

1.5            Test air vehicle for deploy capability

1.6            Test air vehicle for manual operation

1.7            Test air vehicle for autonomous operation

1.8            Test air vehicle for accurate telemetry

1.9            Test air vehicle for power consumption of onboard payload, telemetry sensors, and data-link

1.10         Test air vehicle for capability to orbit around a point of interest

1.11         Test air vehicle for capability to carry 50 pounds (lbs)

2.    Payload

2.1            Test air vehicle payload ensuring color video in daytime operations is capable at 500 feet AGL

2.2            Test air vehicle payload ensuring infrared (IR) video is capable at 500 feet AGL

2.3            Test C2 and Data-link ensuring that the links are interoperable of each other

2.4            Test power consumption of payloads and verify the air vehicle has enough power to utilize all payloads simultaneously

3.    Cost

3.1            Test the ability to build an air vehicle with required equipment under a budget of $150,000

Development Process

The chosen methodology for implementation is the waterfall model of development. This 6 stage model will help to ensure continuity in system development and implementation. The primary reason for choosing the waterfall model is due to its simplicity and because in order to move to the next stage of development the preceding stage must be completed("What is Waterfall model- advantages, disadvantages and when to use it?", n.d.). This model helps us in our short term project of 12 months, from requirement gathering through deployment of system.

Derived requirements

Many of the derived requirements extend from the need for vertical replenishment (VERTREP). Just like manned helicopters do, the ability to vertically replenish medical supplies is crucial to those first responders on the ground. In instances where a person may travel but not a vehicle, having this capacity to deliver medical supplies to someone who can assist the sick and injured is beneficial. The additional requirements that this air vehicle require are because of the rapid response needed, the need to get to smaller regions not accessible by fixed wing aircraft, unsafe operations for larger helicopters, and the need to carry essential medical supplies.

In regards to payload requirements, the ability to detect people at day and night is crucial to the success of assisting others. Because natural disaster recovery needs to be an ongoing effort, the need for these types of payloads is inevitable.

Need for a UCS

 One system that should be examined is utilizing a UAS control segment (UCS). Having this capacity will ensure that C2 and data-link and interoperable. Using a UCS takes into consideration legacy frameworks that can be adjusted for utilization with regular control stations by opening up their abilities and coordinating them with open UCS interfaces, making existing frameworks interoperable as well as promptly upgradable (Lundquist, 2015, pp. 38-39).

Software

Software that will be utilized by The Guardian will be from Neya Systems. Neya systems has created a vertical takeoff and landing evacuation and resupply tactical interface (VERTI),this in conjunction with a medic interface and the UxFleet/Collaborative mission Planning system will allow for rapid integration and testing (Lundquist, 2015, pp. 38-39). Utilizing UxFleet, coordination of multiple UAS platforms is possible by one person. In addition to having the flexibility of having multiple UAS assets, coordination can also be done with other unmanned systems (Batavia, 2015). According to the President of Neya systems, Parag Batavia (2015):

UxFleet moves away from traditional “functional” user interfaces, which focus on direct control of specific payloads, platforms, and sensors. Instead, UxFleet presents a context-aware, mission-specific interface that walks the user through the steps required for a particular mission, while allowing him to make changes to critical parameters as the tactical situation changes in real time (“Making Unmanned Search and Rescue a Reality: Neya’s VERTI Handheld Used for Collaborative Casualty Evacuation”, para.5).

Final Results

Overall this system should be effective in assisting those most in need of medical attention. The ability to collaborate multiple platforms will increase efficiency and will allow for a rapid response time in the wake of a natural disaster. The chosen model of development in conjunction with the chosen software developer will decrease hardware-in-the-loop simulation (HIL-SIM) that normally take weeks to just days (Lundquist, 2015, pp. 38-39). The end result would be having first responders, such as those from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), have a tablet GCS that could operate a fleet of Guardians assisting in the efforts of disaster recovery.

References

Batavia, P. (2015, April 30). Making Unmanned Search and Rescue a Reality: Neya’s VERTI Handheld Used for Collaborative Casualty Evacuation. Retrieved September 30, 2015, from http://neyasystems.com/43015-making-unmanned-search-and-rescue-a-reality-neyas-verti-handheld-used-for-collaborative-casualty-evacuation/

Lundquist, E. (2015, September). Under control: UCS architecture enables collaboration between big and small Business. Unmanned Systems, 39(9), 38-39.

What is Waterfall model- advantages, disadvantages and when to use it? (n.d.). Retrieved September 30, 2015, from http://istqbexamcertification.com/what-is-waterfall-model-advantages-disadvantages-and-when-to-use-it/

Unmanned Aircraft Missions

Understanding and knowing the impact of hurricanes is always of interest during this time of the year. Hurricane season in the Atlantic begins June 1st and ends November 30^th. The Eastern Pacific hurricane season begins May 15th and also ends November 30^th (“National Hurricane Center”). One of the agencies that does hurricane monitoring is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  Up until recently NOAA has used a small variety of manned aircraft to accomplish tracking and researching hurricanes. One of those manned aircraft is the Lockheed WP-3D Orion.  NOAA has described the Orion as a “versatile turboprop aircraft” because of the Orion’s “unprecedented variety of scientific instrumentation, radars and recording systems ("Lockheed WP-3D Orion").”  The WP-3D Orion has played a pivotal role in data collection and research of hurricanes, this “data is to help forecasters make accurate predictions during a hurricane; and to help NOAA researchers achieve a better understanding of storm processes, thereby improving their forecast models ("NOAA’s “Hurricane Hunter” Aircraft Lockheed WP-3D Orion ").” The overall effective range and crew requirements of the WP-3D Orion is as follows: For lower altitudes the aircraft can operate an area of 2500 nautical miles or 9.5 hours, alternatively at higher altitudes the aircraft has an effective range of 3800 nautical miles or 11.5 hours. The crew consists of 2 Pilots, Flight Engineer, Navigator, Flight Director (meteorologist), 2 or 3 Engineering/Electronic specialists, Radio/Avionics specialist, and a up to 12 Scientist or Media personnel.

An alternative to this mission would be the use of an unmanned aircraft system (UAS). One of the platforms that NOAA has actively acquired in conjunction with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is the Global Hawk UAS. “For the last five years, NOAA has teamed up with NASA to fly NASA’s Global Hawk unmanned aircraft to get an inside look at how hurricanes form and intensify over the Atlantic (Allen, "New mission for the Global Hawk").”  The HS3 Global Hawk is a capable UAS that provides an endurance of over 24 hours and an effective range of 12,300 nautical miles ("U.S. Air Force"), almost quadruple that of the manned WP-3D Orion.  Another capable UAS used by both NOAA and NASA is the Aerosonde UAS. The Aerosonde UAS was utilized on September 16^th, 2005, to observe and fly into tropical storm Ophelia. At the time, Ophelia was a 55kt tropical storm and was located off the North Carolina coastline ("NOAA Unmanned Aircraft Systems"). The ability for this particular UAS intercept the tropical storm proved to be critical, as it was “capable of flying at altitudes of 500 feet or less within the high-wind hurricane eyewall environment. This is thousands of feet lower than any manned aircraft is able to operate ("NOAA Unmanned Aircraft Systems").” Again this UAS has a much higher endurance, within the realm of 30 hours ("NOAA Unmanned Aircraft Systems"), to perform a similar mission to the WP-3D Orion.  The last and final UAS up for consideration is Raytheon’s Coyote. This UAS is also used by NOAA in their efforts to collect better data on hurricanes. According to NOAA the Coyote is “dropped from a free fall chute in the belly of the plane, the Coyote is designed to then open its six-foot wingspan and fly through the storm (Pomerleau, "NOAA drones drop in on hurricanes -- GCN").” Like the Aerosonde, the Coyote is capable of collecting data of hurricanes at much lower altitudes, something manned aircraft just cannot do safely(Pomerleau, "NOAA drones drop in on hurricanes -- GCN").
            The capability to use a more cost effective means of tracking hurricanes is one of the benefits using any of these UAS provide. Additionally the data that is collected because of these UAS’s capacity to stay aloft longer can prove to be beneficial in the long-term. From Raytheon’s website they cite that the Coyote “meets current P-3 mission requirements and is developed and tested to save lives, reduce operational costs and provide tactical surveillance data ("Raytheon").” These benefits and cost savings grossly outweigh the use of manned aircraft and should prove to be a valuable asset in the future.

There are problems with using these unmanned aircraft systems however, and that extends from legal issues.  This legal issue is the certificate of authorization (COA) required from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to operate those unmanned systems commercially. The COA allows an operator to use a defined block of airspace and includes special safety provisions unique to the proposed operation. COAs usually are issued for a specific period – up to two years in many cases ("Public Operations (Governmental)"). Many of these UAS’s operate in areas where there is not aircraft, not too many aircraft are willingly flying towards a hurricane, but there is still that requirement to do so legally. In regards to ethical challenges, there are not too many that are opposed to better tracking of a potential disaster. One that comes to mind is the possibility of wasting materials (systems like the Coyote not being always being recovered) and the potential for one of these UAS to crash into the ocean. This stems from an environmental standpoint and could pose a threat to wildlife in the immediate vicinity of the hurricane and the aftermath of spilled fuel, should one of the UAS malfunction or be enveloped in the storm.

This particular type of mission appears to be an “ideal” mission for UAS, and most certainly agrees with the type of dirty, dull, and dangerous operations we most associate with UAS. The greatest challenge that these systems will face is the shear amount of data that they provide, and the time that will be required to analyze such data. In a give and take relationship however, the tradeoff appears promising, as scientists are granted a better glimpse of what is going on inside of hurricanes with the potential to create better forecasting models.

References

Allen, M. (2014, September 11). New mission for the Global Hawk. Retrieved September 20, 2015, from http://research.noaa.gov/News/NewsArchive/LatestNews/TabId/684/ArtMID/1768/ArticleID/10742/New-mission-for-the-Global-Hawk-.aspx

Lockheed WP-3D Orion. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2015, from http://www.aoc.noaa.gov/aircraft_lockheed.htm

NOAA Unmanned Aircraft Systems. (2005). Retrieved September 20, 2015, from http://uas.noaa.gov/projects/demos/aerosonde/Ophelia_final.html

NOAA’s “Hurricane Hunter” Aircraft Lockheed WP-3D Orion. (2005, June 1). Retrieved September 20, 2015, from http://www.aoc.noaa.gov/Backgrounders/Lockheed WP-3D Orion.pdf

National Hurricane Center. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2015, from http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/

Pomerleau, M. (2015, June 18). NOAA drones drop in on hurricanes -- GCN. Retrieved September 20, 2015, from http://gcn.com/articles/2015/06/18/noaa-hurricane-drones.aspx

Public Operations (Governmental). (n.d.). Retrieved September 21, 2015, from https://www.faa.gov/uas/public_operations/

Raytheon. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2015, from http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/coyote/

U.S. Air Force. (2014, October 1). Retrieved September 20, 2015, from http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104516/rq-4-global-hawk.aspx