The Value of the Case Analysis

ASCI 530 Case Analysis

The Value of A Case Analysis

                The prospect of pursuing a Masters program was something I needed to consider very carefully; was I up to the challenge, would it benefit me and how?  Then as I explored the program and discovered it would primarily use an online modality, I was even more cautious.  New questions entered into the equation;  did I have the discipline to do a course of study online?  I’ve taken on the challenge, and at times it feels similar to jumping off a diving board.  I know it’s the deep end of the pool, and I can analogously wonder if the water is going to be cold.  It’s too late, I’m off the diving board and the water is swiftly approaching.  To go further with the analogy, the water is refreshing and invigorating.  I am lucky, and grateful to have stumbled onto this amazing opportunity.  Through some remarkable twist of fate, here I am.

                The Case Analysis is a mean of overcoming the limited interaction an online course would otherwise entail.  I’ve never met my new friends, Molly, Chris, and William but I know their writing style and commitment to their own goals inspires me.  We each have different backgrounds and experiences.  I’ve learned by reviewing their work, just as if we were showing up to a brick and mortar classroom; they are in every way my classmates.  Through the Case Analysis, I was able to share some past experience, recalling the time I worked in a Marine Direct Air Support Center (DASC), and needed to advise aircraft whenever a UAS had a lost-link.  I recalled terms I haven’t used in years; “big sky, little airplane”, and many others.  I could envision the working conditions of my classmates as they are still a little closer in their occupations to that facet of aviation.   Today I work in a lab testing the software that the men and women in the field will rely upon to get their jobs done. I know what I do may save lives, and working with my classmates reminds me of that fact.

My future career is in aviation, and specifically with Unmanned Systems.  It’s a growing and evolving field and I’ll need to continue to learn new things if I’m going to succeed.  The Case Study may or may not exactly match what I do day to day, but my mind is open to learning new things, and it’s a pleasure to share this new knowledge with the people I work with day to day.  Not knowing what the future holds is in itself exciting, and I’m not willing to say this new knowledge won’t help.  For now I’m just happy for the opportunity to learn.

Retrofit Might Be The Answer

Request For Proposal; Retrofit Might Be The Answer

Roy Sandridge

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University – Worldwide

7.4 – Research: Unmanned Systems (UNSY 530)

Abstract

California faces numerous challenges in its ability to respond to the multitude of natural disasters affecting this great state.  The scientific community has almost assured us there will be another earthquake like the one that very nearly destroyed  San Francisco in 1906, Southern California residence are reminded daily of the critical drought while at the same time other states face floods, and the summer season is also known as “Fire Season” in The Golden State.  Responding to these challenges has not been easy.  In the face of natural disaster, every available resource must be leveraged in response, so we can minimize loss of life, or destroyed natural habitat,  and property.  One possible solution to aerial equation can be the employment of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) to deliver water or other fire suppression material to aide in combating these disasters.  Developing an aircraft in its entirety might prove to be cost prohibitive.  This paper explores the potential for equipping existing manned aircraft with the equipment necessary to make them UAS.

 

Request For Proposal

 

Out of Harm’s Way

Sending humans to fight fires puts them at risk, and putting them in an aircraft to fly above and fight a fire compounds that rise exponentially.  While aircraft has been proven to be exceptional assets in fighting fires, developments in Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) may provide a solution to the conundrum of putting human lives at greater risk while fighting those fires.  In this research paper I hope to explore the potential for retrofitting existing aerial assets to make the UAS capable, and functional in providing fire fighting support.

System Requirements: Current aerial assets are employed in fire fighting situations as delivery platforms, bringing water, or fire suppression chemicals directly over a fire.  The asset currently requires a “man at the stick”, but recent technological advances now make it possible to remove the human from the cockpit in nearly any aircraft in use today.  Any proposed solution must be adaptable to function with the existing inventory of aircraft.

1. Transportability: The transport of all necessary equipment to appropriate air fields in operation.
   1. [Derived Requirement]: All component parts of the retrofit, test, or support equipment shall be transportable by commercial or USPS ground, sea, or air transportation.
      1. Test Requirement: Document review of shipping standards and USPS regulations.
2. Cost: Development cost will be covered separately; after which cost per air vehicle must meet agreed upon maximums. 
   1. [Derived Requirement]: Cost shall not exceed $1M per retrofitted aircraft.
      1. Test Requirement: Reviewed cost sheets.
   2. [Derived Requirement]:  Maintenance cost shall not exceed 10% annually of the cost to retrofit each aircraft.
      1. Test Requirement: Review of cost sheets.
3. Control System Element: A sub-system of UAS
   1. [Derived Requirement]: One Ground Control Station (GCS) per region shall control multiple aerial vehicles.
      1. Test Requirement: Monitors will display symbology of multiple (real-time) aircraft in an area not less than 50 square miles.
      2. Test Requirement:  GCS shall display the health and status of all active retrofitted aircraft in the area of interest.
4. Development Schedule:  (Fielded by 2018)
   1. [Derived Requirement]: Design shall be complete NLT Dec 2016.
   2. [Derived Requirement]: Ground Station testing shall begin NLT Jun 2016.
   3. [Derived Requirement]: Flight testing shall begin NLT Aug 2016.
5. Associated Design Considerations:
6. Development Process:
   1. This effort shall follow a Spiral test and development process in order to facilitate a quick response and initial fielding of the approved system.
       

Design Rational

Retrofitting existing aircraft would likely be more cost effective in the near term for state governments rather than designing aircraft not currently in existence, where their function is to carry large/bulky payloads such as water, or fire suppression chemicals.  The military has already provided a proof of concept where existing aircraft have been retrofitted to function as UAS as discussed by Colin Dunjohn (2013).   While retrofits generally occur on site, or by flying an aircraft to a designated location, I’ve recommended all necessary design, development, and test equipment be ground transported to the aircraft’s home station, thereby minimizing the time the aircraft would be out of operation.  Cost factors are weighed giving consideration that state and local governments will not have budgets equivalent to that of the federal government.  The development schedule was somewhat arbitrary, and would likely be extended due to FAA regulatory processes.
References

Dunjohn, C., (09/27/13), Boeing Converts F-16 Fighter Jet Into an Unmanned Drone, Gizmag, Retrieved 10/26/15: http://www.gizmag.com/boeing-f16-jet-unmanned-drone/29203/

 

 

 

Running head: Unmanned Aircraft Use In Border Protection

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unmanned Aircraft Use In Border Protection

Roy Sandridge

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University – Worldwide

6.4 – Research: UAS Mission

Abstract

The use of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) is on the rise across America and is gaining popularity beyond the hobbyist, and modeler.  UAS has been effectively used by the military for years, proving themselves as effective in aerial imagery, communications relay, and even weapons delivery.  The applications in commercial, law enforcement, and border protection use also continues to grow.  Closely relating to the proof of concept/employment provided by the military use, is the use by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection which has also found UAS to be ideal platforms for aerial survey, imagery, reconnaissance, intelligence, and surveillance.  This paper will look at the applications for which UAS have been employed and the benefits derived in keeping our borders safe, including but not limited to aerial survey, and drug interdiction.

Unmanned Aerial Systems in Border Protection

The Predator Choice

The MQ-9 Predator B has found itself in the inventory of the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).  Given the political and military conflicts that have become a normal part of daily news for so long, and the prominence of unmanned aircraft used in those conflicts, it’s may not be easy for anyone without a military background to imagine a non-destructive use for an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS).  The Predator however, may be ideally suited for the role of providing the surveillance needed.

 

Design And Implementation

The Predator has proven to be reliable and fault-tolerant, engineered to exceed the reliability standards in many capacities of manned aircraft.  Engine performance and fuel efficiency are provided by the Honeywell TPE331-10 turboprop engine, which has proved to be particularly efficient at low altitudes. The modular payload capability is easily reconfigured, making it capable of carrying Electro-Optical/Infrared (EO/IR) multi-mode radar, surveillance radar, and a variety of other sensors making it a highly capable platform.  Future designs will have extended wing spans of 79 feet allowing the aircraft to carry more fuel, and extending its flight time to as long as 42 hours. (General Atomics Aeronautical, n.d.).

 

Other platforms that could do the same job

1.  The Northrop Grumman Global Hawk provides the same capability, but may be cost prohibitive. (Foxtrot Alpha, n.d.)
2. MQ-8B has limited time on station making it impractical.(Northrop Grumman, n.d.)
3. Solar powered aircraft are being developed, such as the one by Boeing Aerospace (Solar Eagle) and the Zephyr High Altitude Pseudo-Satellite (HAPS) UAS which carries an optical camera at altitudes around seventy thousand (70,000) feet, and these platforms may stay aloft for weeks, perhaps even years but this technology is still under development. (Boeing, n.d., and Airbus Defense and Space, nd.)

 

Considerations relative to the mission and they correlate to the performance of any related mission execution tasks

The decision makers in the U.S. government have a challenging task; patrolling the skies to prevent the illegal entry of weapon of terror, interdicting illegal narcotics, and preventing the illegal entry of undocumented persons into the United States (U.S. Customs and Border Protection, n.d.).  The question, is can something that is often misunderstood by so many as being lethal, be the right choice to accomplish that task.  What the opposition should realize is that the Predator wasn’t first designed to be a weapons delivery platform.  The inventor, Abraham Karem, had no intention of designing a weapons platform, but rather a platform for surveillance (Whittle, R., 4/2013).  The employment of the Predator with CBP is much more in line with what the inventor had envisioned.

Benefits and challenges associated with performing the particular UAS mission

The idea of using a remote sensing capability for border protection began in 1998, though at that time the idea was a ground-based “fence” called Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS).  That project ultimately failed and the focus has shifted to using an aerial platform, which itself has had its share of difficulty.  About six months after the fist Predator was put into use by the CBP, the pilot of one of these aircraft belonging to CBP crashed it into a hillside after the engine was shut down in midflight.  Today, having overcome many of the initial challenges, the CBP maintains a fleet of nine Predator B UAS in three locations; Arizona, North Dakota. and Texas (Michel, A. H.,  1/7/15). 

Legal and or ethical challenges to the specific mission your are highlighting

The Federal Aviation Administration regulations allow the CBP UAV operations to exist, given that they have cognizance over the National Air Space.  At the same time, they restrict the use of UAS aircraft over populated areas.  A question for consideration might then be, if the goal of the Predator is to provide surveillance over an area where people might be trying to cross a remote area, and there is a concern that an unmanned aircraft might crash to the ground, is it ethical to put such an aircraft in that area?  In 2011 a professor at The University of Texas figured out how to intercept Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) while in flight (NPR, 7/8/15).  Given the possibility, even if it is remote, shouldn’t the FAA give consideration the danger?  Systems security should always be a factor when human lives, American or otherwise, are at risk.

A second consideration is that of privacy.  Border protection is a necessary part of our lives, given the many uncertainties in the world.  At least some consideration should be given to the capabilities presented when an UAS is flying overhead.  With the increasing use of UAS and the incredible high altitude surveillance capabilities they provide, should we all now assume that when we leave our homes, we are potentially being observed?  Have we given up any and all reasonable expectations of privacy outside our homes? 

 

References

Airbus Defense & Space, n.d., Retrieved 10/19/15, http://militaryaircraft-airbusds.com/Aircraft/UAV/Zephyr.aspx

Boeing, n.d., Retrieved 10/19/15, http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2010-09-16-Boeing-Wins-DARPA-Vulture-II-Program

 

 

Foxtrot Alpha, n.d., Retrieved 10/19/15, http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-the-usafs-massive-10-billion-global-hawk-uav-was-w-1629932000

General Atomics Aeronautical, n.d., Predator B, RPA, Retrieve from http://www.ga-asi.com/predator-b

Northrop Grumman, n.d., Retrieved 10/19/15, http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/FireScout/Documents/pageDocuments/MQ-8B_Fire_Scout_Data_Sheet.pdf

Michel, A. H., (January 7, 2015), Center for the Study of the Drone, at Bard College, Retrived 10/19/15, http://dronecenter.bard.edu/customs-and-border-protection-drones/

NPR, 7/8/15, Hacking Drones and The Dangers It Presents, npr.org, Retrieved 10/19/15, http://www.npr.org/2012/07/08/156459939/hacking-drones-and-the-dangers-it-presents

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, n.d., Retrieved 10/19/15, http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/uas_prog_3.pdf

Whittle, R., (April, 2013), The Man Who Invented the Predator, Air & Space Magazine, Retrieved 10/19/15, http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/the-man-who-invented-the-predator-3970502/?no-ist

The Separation of Aircraft in the NAS

[The Separation of Aircraft in the NAS]

[R. Sandridge]

[Embry-Riddle University - Worldwide]

Abstract

 As the governing agency for the United States, responsible for safe operations of aircraft flying within the National Air Space (NAS), the FAAs mission as stated on the official website is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.  This is a  monumental task considering unmanned systems and the technology they employ has developed faster than government regulators can match as they write the laws and regulations necessary to meet their mission.  One critical component is the need to ensure the separation of air traffic given the diversity of the airframes and their current capabilities to meet that requirement.

 

The Separation of Aircraft in the NAS

  In the case of larger, more sophisticated systems such as the Global Hawk, Predator, and Reaper aircraft, there are onboard collision avoidance systems just as those that might be found in large scale commercial aircraft, but in the case of smaller aircraft where that capability does not yet exist, rules need to be written and followed to ensure the safe operation of all aircraft (manned and unmanned) flying in the National Air Space (NAS).  Recognizing this need, the FAA has proposed new rules outlined in detail in the Federal Register of the Department of Transportation, Vol. 80, Number 35 which addresses a multitude of safety considerations relating to smaller UASs and the proposed guidelines for their safe operation. In it, the FAA states the expectation that each person operating aircraft will maintain vigilance so as to see and avoid other aircraft.  The FAA also recognizes the advancement in collision avoidance technology which allow more sophisticated aircraft and Ground Control Systems (GCS) to use onboard collision avoidance systems and detect the reply signals from other aircraft.  This capability is not inherent to smaller systems today, though through component miniaturization and other advancements, it might well be in the future.  (Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 35).

            The use of radar, Collision Avoidance Systems (CAS) and beaconing, where aircraft transmit a signal received by other aircraft has been effective in reducing the number of mid-air collisions for manned systems.  These same methods can, and should be applied to UAS as well as much as they are available.  In the case of smaller systems, Line of Sight (LOS), segregated airspace, and pilot diligence must be enforced until other measures can be employed. 

 

 

References

http://www.faa.gov/about/

Retrieved 10/4/15.

Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 35 / Monday, February 23, 2015/Proposed Rules Retrieved From:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-02-23/pdf/2015-03544.pdf

 

Getting Back On Track

Blog Post #2

ASCI 530 – Unmanned Aerospace Systems

Assignment 2.4 Research; Weeding Out A Solution

Getting Back on Track

   In spite of all the tools of the trade we have at our disposal throughout a systems development life-cycle, setbacks happen.  In the following hypothetical, we exam what can be done to get a project back on track when it’s encountered a problem.

    Unmanned Aerial Systems are designed to do jobs considered to be dull, dirty and/or dangerous.  Dispensing fertilizer is all three of those.  Employing a Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) to do that job is only effective if can do it better than current methods.  We are looking at two key requirements in this summary: doing more (dispensing more fertilizer) with less (fuel).   The specification are spelled out in the Request For Proposal (RFP).  Once contracts are signed in response to the RFP, a company’s reputation is on the line; they must do what they’ve said they will do.  Industry standards often dictate how standards should be met, but it’s up to each team how to effectively employ the many tools at their disposal.  In this case, we are looking at a fertilizer delivery platform able to deliver a specified amount of fertilizer over a specified area.  We are now contractually obligated to develop a system to meet those specifications.  Stakeholders include Business Development & Marketing, Mechanical Engineers, Software Engineers, Test Engineers, Production staff,  Quality Assurance, Project/Program Management (PM), and of course the customer.  System Engineering, as an advocate for the customer, ties everyone together and provides guidance to the other departments as well as facilitates dispute resolution.  The governing document is the Systems Requirement Specification (SRS) which now forms a part of the contract.

    Given the parameters of the SRS, a systems analysis can determine that our proposed platform with the currently proposed fuel capacity, and payload capacity  will be insufficient to meet those requirements.  The project timeline is immediately impacted and a new timeline will need to be established.  While it’s never an enjoyable conversation to have with a customer, they are a stake holder in the project and should be consulted when devising a solution to this problem.  If the system, as it is in this case cannot meet those specifications, it is necessary to gain a better understanding of the requirement and its degree of importance to the execution of the systems mission (Kossiakoff, Sweet, & Seymour, 2011).

    Analysis of the problem:

1.  The use of Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) hardware has caused the system, as it  is designed, to be overweight.
2. The weight of the system, as currently designed, reduces the payload capacity.

    Solution:

1. With customer approval, revise the delivery timeline and rework the design to meet the SRS.
2. Alternatively, with customer approval, deliver the system as currently designed, and plan for future upgrades which would meet current specifications.

    Properly used, tools such as Microsoft Project, or other planning tools can keep projects on-time, and often under budget.  This hypothetical presents some unfortunate circumstances which could have been easily avoided if proper systems engineering practices had been used. 

 

References

Kossiakoff, Alexander, Sweet, William N., and Seymour, Sam. Systems Engineering Principles and Practice (2nd Edition). Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley-Interscience, 2011. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 21 September 2015.

The Evolution of Unmanned Aerial Systems

Blog Post #1

ASCI 530 – Unmanned Aerospace Systems

 

The Evolution of Unmanned Aerial Systems

 

    Like so many boys growing up I had a keen interest in model airplanes.  Cutting little plastic parts, and gluing them together to marvel at a replica of an admired piece of engineering genius.  That led the way to fly by wire model planes, and the ever “cool” Estes model rockets with their solid propellant, size A, B, C, and D engines; some even double stage.  Later, when my budget allowed (or rather my parent’s budget would allow), I graduated to remotely controlled vehicles.  So went my evolution with Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV).  Today that interest carries over to my professional life where I get to research, and be involved in the development of real Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs), and the ground elements that are used to operate them remotely.

    As a kid I thought Radio Control (RC) was cutting edge technology, but if that were true I’d have to be over a 100 years old today.  For the record, I am not.  Several technological obstacles have stood in the way of the advancement of the UAS, guidance systems and control of those systems likely being the most obvious.  The United States first began exploring the utility of UAS during World War 1 but those efforts were plagued by the unavailability of a reliable guidance system (Zaloga, 2008, p 4).  In 1909, American inventor Elmer Sperry began designing gyroscopic devices to control the stability of aircraft.  That led the way for the modern Inertial Navigation Systems (INS) in use today.   (Zaloga, 2008, P6).

    Navigational systems is just one milestone in the evolution of the UAS.  Others have been the improvements in remote communications most notably through satellite communications which allow pilots to “fly” those aircraft from thousands of miles away, replacing the radio control first introduced to the United States Navy in the 1930s by Reginald Denny of the hobby industry, and his Radioplane company.  Mr. Denny developed several versions of his model, the RP-1 through the RP-19/OQ-19 over several years.  His Radioplane was acquired by Northrop Grumman and went on to form the core of one of the most successful of today’s UAV firms  (Zaloga, 2008, P 7).

    Greater distances between aircraft and control site necessitates an accurate reporting of the aircrafts location when beyond line of sight, usually via GPS reporting.  No matter how reliable a control channels may be, it’s absolutely imperative that some safety measures be in place in the event of a communications system failure.  A modern UAS needs some degree of autonomy.  In the more sophisticated aircraft, that is achieved through on board mission management computer systems which have flight plans loaded so if communications  are lost, the aircraft can still execute preprogrammed instructions, allowing it to Return to Base (RTB), land safely, or proceed to a preestablished way point in its flight plan in the hopes of reestablishing control and communications.    Many control agencies, including the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) already insist upon a Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) before they will allow an aircraft to transit over a populated area, or within their airspace.  That will surely extend to the UAS as well.  The mindset of “big sky, little bullet” is not, nor should it ever be, acceptable.   The refinement of existing TCAS is likely to further the advancement, and prevalence of UASs in the skies above us.  UASs have come a long way from Reginald Denny’s Radioplane, largely in part due to the advancement in satellite communications providing that means of control, as well as enabling the UAS to be a platform for various payloads including sophisticated Electro-Optical systems, such as that integrated in Boeing’s ScanEagle, initially designed for the commercial fishing industry, and later used by the military as an observation platform, proving UAVs have a much greater utility than as simple targeting drones (Boeing, 9/2015).

    To the uninformed, UASs present a danger to our population, but I would argue that the systems in use, and those in development today are, and will continue to be, tremendously valuable tools, furthering our ability to fight fires, conduct search and rescue operations, extend communications, conduct terrain mapping, and will have countless other uses.  One thing is certain; UASs will continue to grow within the aviation community and even today we can look at them as the next big thing in a rapidly developing and exciting industry.

 

 

 

References

Zaloga, S. J.  (2008) Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Robotic Air Warfare 1917 – 2007.  Osprey

     Publishing/Random House Distribution Center, Westminster, MD 21157

(Boeing, 9/2015) ScanEagle Unmanned Aerial Vehicle [online]. Available: http://www.boeing.com/history/products/scaneagle-unmanned-aerial-vehicle.page