ScanEagle Risk Assessment Tool ASCI 638- Human Factors in Unmanned Aero Sys Assignment 7.6-Operational Risk Assessment

ScanEagle Risk Assessment Tool

Scott E. Leishman

ASCI 638- Human Factors in Unmanned Aero Sys

 Assignment 7.6-Operational Risk Assessment

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University-Worldwide

January 11, 2017

Risk Assessment Tool

          For this assignment I decided to do research on a tool created by Boeing for the ScanEagle Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.   This system was created in collaboration with Insitu Inc. The ScanEagle comes equipped with an Infrared camera or can alternatively be equipped with an Electro-Optical camera, which is mounted on the gyro-stabilized turret system created by the collaborative companies. This allows the camera to pan, tilt and zoom (ScanEagle, n.d.). This UAV is fully capable of operating autonomously and will work independently or has the capability to work in groups at altitudes up to and including 16,000 ft. with an endurance of more than 24 hours (ScanEagle, n.d.).  Aircraft general characteristics are listed in figure 1.

            Safety is always a major concern when anything unmanned is discussed. In order to decide what constitutes a hazard, a preliminary hazard list (figure 2) needs to be formulated. In order to create this list for this particular aircraft, focus was given on the operational stage during flight. In order to complete a hazard list and conduct a proper analysis key factors were reviewed, they included the following: avionics failure, lost link, engine failure, sensor malfunction, and midair collisions.  These hazards would then be assigned a numerical value. Once the numerical value was assigned, factors that contributed to those hazards are evaluated and given a similar numerical value, these factors included the following:  mitigating action, probability, risk level, and severity (Barnhart, Shappee, & Marshall, 2012).   Based off of the MIL-STD-8820/E form probability was assigned a category of severity based on the ratings of frequent, probable, occasional, remote, and improbable. This same rating was used for severity with descriptors being catastrophic, critical, marginal, and negligible as listed in table 4. The last step of the matrix was associating a number assigned to a given risk, where the higher number corresponded to a lower risk (Barnhart, Shappee, & Marshall, 2012).   Based off of information from figure 4, those numbers would then be input to figures 2 and 3. Based off of the matrix the lowest risks were associated with sensor malfunction in flight operation. This is primarily because the aircraft can still operate and be controlled safely back to receive repairs. Alternatively, the highest risk was associated with scenarios that involved lost link. This becomes problematic because the aircraft will continue to fly a pre-programmed route and re-establish links, in the event that it could not do so, such as the return to base portion not being programmed, the aircraft would ultimately go bingo fuel, then emergency fuel, resulting in a crash.

            The next step in completing the risk assessment tool for the ScanEagle was to conduct an operational hazard review and analysis (OHR&A) (figure 3) utilizing a template created by Barnhart, Shappee, & Marshall (2012), and illustrated in figure 5.  Utilizing this risk assessment tool allows previously listed hazards to be evaluated and gives provisions on human factors such as how the human would interface with the equipment or operating systems associated with that equipment. This second step is similar to the creation of the preliminary hazard list/ analysis (PHL/A) but rather than have hazard column, the column is replaced with the term “action review.” In doing this second step, mitigating action can be assigned to each hazard, to determine if adequate support is given. In the event where the mitigating action was insufficient/inadequate, the hazard gets re-listed. Additionally, any instance where the mitigating action was able to modify any type of hazard, this would lead to the hazard being listed as well (Barnhart, Shappee, & Marshall, 2012).  

            This lead to the final product that is shown in figure 5. This risk assessment tool allows the ScanEagle operator and the crew the ability to rapidly asses the operation and mitigate any risks before the team follows through on the flight. This tool is a safety management tool, and allows for real time situations to be assessed and facilitates the operation to be continuously monitored (Barnhart, Shappee, & Marshall, 2012).  For unmanned aircraft operators, this tool acts like a preflight checklist and is essential for mission preparation. It allows for this mission to be briefed carefully, and any known or associated risks that could occur during the mission.

References

Barnhart, R., Hottman, S., Marshall, D., & Shappee, E. (2012). Introduction to unmanned aircraft systems (1st ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Boeing: Historical Snapshot: ScanEagle Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. (2017). Boeing.com. Retrieved 12 January 2017, from http://www.boeing.com/history/products/scaneagle-unmanned-aerial-vehicle.page

APPENDIX

   Figure 1 General Characteristics of Scan Eagle UAV

 Figure 1. General Characteristics of Scan Eagle UAV, ScanEagle.           

Preliminary Hazard List/Analysis

  Figure 2. An example of a Preliminary Hazards Assessment worksheet for the sUAS, ScanEagle.

Operation Hazard List/Analysis

Figure 2. An example of Operational Hazard Review and Analysis worksheet for the sUAS, ScanEagle.              

Figure 4 Risk assessment matrix

 Figure 4. ScanEagle Operational Risk Management worksheet.  This worksheet is borrowed/adapted from: Barnhart, R., Hottman, S., Marshall, D., & Shappee, E. (2011).Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft Systems. London: CRC Press.

Figure 5 ScanEagle Operational Risk Management worksheet

 Figure 5. ScanEagle Operational Risk Management worksheet.  This worksheet is borrowed/adapted from: Barnhart, R., Hottman, S., Marshall, D., & Shappee, E. (2012).Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft Systems. London: CRC Press. Page 128.