Abstract
This chapter describes unmanned aircraft with respect to autonomy and safety aspects of aerospace. The focus will be on unmanned aircraft systems, however most of the principles regarding safety and automation are valid for both, manned and unmanned aviation. As a means to assure safety for aircraft, safety assessments, development processes, and software standards have been established for manned aviation. In this context, design-time assurance of software will be discussed. Another key component of the safety concept for manned aviation is the onboard pilot. The pilot supervises and validates the system behavior and develops a gut feeling if the system is okay, due to his onboard presence. This is not possible for an unmanned aircraft. Human supervision will be remotely located. Therefore, an extensive discussion on runtime assurance and automated supervision will be a part of this work. Furthermore, with the growing degrees of automation and upcoming autonomy of the aircraft, one pilot might have to supervise more than one aircraft at the same time. Unmanned aircraft are expected to be integrated into civil airspace in the near future, possibly in very large quantities. The autonomy of these unmanned aircraft and the absence of a pilot onboard the aircraft is a source of concern. However, the automation and autonomy can also support safety. The interdependence between safety and autonomy will be discussed in this chapter. The challenge regarding unmanned aircraft is that the same level of safety can be maintained. In this context, this chapter will discuss the impact of new and upcoming regulations and standards for unmanned aircraft regarding a holistic approach to the assessment of risk and their impact on autonomy and safety.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The term holistic is used in this context to express a contrast to manned aviation, where the aspects of the ConOps as defined by SORA are handled separately.
- 2.
In fact, the SORA differs between the so-called harm and thread barriers. While the first modifies the intrinsic risks by supporting safety even if an unmanned aircraft goes out of control, the second reduces the likelihood that it goes out of control in the first place. For simplicity reasons, we stick to the combination of both and call them safety barriers here.
- 3.
https://www.uber.com/info/elevate/, accessed 02-02-2018.
- 4.
https://www.airbus-sv.com/projects/1, accessed 02-02-2018.
- 5.
https://www.volocopter.com/en/, accessed 02-02-2018.
- 6.
https://lilium.com/, accessed 02-02-2018.
- 7.
http://www.ehang.com/ehang184/, accessed 02-02-2018.
- 8.
http://evtol.news/, accessed 04-02-2018.
- 9.
http://dragonflyer.biz/, accessed 04-02-2018.
References
ICAO. Cir 328 AN/190 unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). Technical report, ICAO (2011)
EASA. Concept of operation for Drones: a risk based approach to regulation of unmanned aircraft. European Aviation Safety Agency (2015)
EASA. Introduction of a regulatory framework for the operation of unmanned aircraft, technical opinion. European Aviation Safety Agency (2015)
EASA. Introduction of a regulatory framework for the operation of Drones, notice of proposed amendment, NPA 2017-5. European Aviation Safety Agency (2017)
H.-M. Huang, E. Messina, J. Albus, Autonomy levels for unmanned systems (ALFUS) framework - volume II: framework models version 1.0. Technical report, NIST special publication 1011-II-1.0. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2007)
H.-M. Huang, Autonomy levels for unmanned systems (ALFUS) framework - volume I: terminology. Technical report, NIST special publication 1011-I-2.0. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2008)
F. Kendoul, Survey of advances in guidance, navigation, and control of unmanned rotorcraft systems. J. Field Robot. 29(2), 315–378 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.20414. ISSN: 1556-4967
F. Kendoul, Towards a unified framework for UAS autonomy and technology readiness assessment (ATRA), in Autonomous Control Systems and Vehicles, ed. by K. Nonami, M. Kartidjo, K.-J. Yoon, A. Budiyono. Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering, vol. 65 (Springer, Japan, 2013), pp. 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-54276-6_4. ISBN: 978-4-431-54275-9
C. Torens, F.-M. Adolf, Fail-safe systems from a UAS guidance perspective, Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering (Wiley, New York, 2010). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470686652.eae1147. ISBN: 9780470686652
C. Torens, F. Adolf, P. Faymonville, S. Schirmer, Towards intelligent system health management using runtime monitoring, in AIAA Information Systems-AIAA Infotech @ Aerospace (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), 2017). https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-0419
N.G. Leveson, Safeware: System Safety and Computers (ACM, New York, 1995)
RTCA/EUROCAE. ED-12C/DO-178C software considerations in airborne systems and equipment certification. Technical report, EUROCAE (2012)
RTCA/EUROCAE. DO-333/ED-216 formal methods supplement to DO-178C and DO-278A. Technical report, EUROCAE (2012)
A. C. F. on Unmanned Aircraft Systems. F3201 - 16 standard practice for ensuring dependability of software used in unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). ASTM Subcommittee F38.01 on Airworthiness (2016)
A. C. F38. Designation: F3269 - 17 standard practice for methods to safely bound flight behavior of unmanned aircraft systems containing complex functions. ASTM Subcommittee F38.01 on Airworthiness (2017)
JARUS. Guidelines on specific operations risk assessment (SORA). Technical report, Joint Authorities for Rulemaking of Unmanned Systems (2017)
J.C. Dauer, S. Lorenz, J.S. Dittrich, Automated low altitude air delivery, Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress (Braunschweig, Germany, 2016), pp. 1–8
Y. Hasan, F. Sachs, J.C. Dauer, Preliminary design study for a future unmanned cargo aircraft configuration, Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress (Braunschweig, Germany, 2016)
N. Peinecke, A. Volkert, B. Korn, Minimum risk low altitude airspace integration for larger cargo UAS, in Integrated Communications Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS 2017) (IEEE Press, 2017)
P. Kopardekar, J. Rios, T. Prevot, M. Johnson, J. Jung, J. Robinson, Unmanned aircraft system traffic management (UTM) concept of operations, in 16th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference. AIAA 2016-3292, Washington DC (2016)
E. Dill, S. Young, K. Hayhurst, Safeguard - an assured safety net technology for UAS, in 35th Digital Avionics Systems conference (DASC), Sacramento, CA (2016)
C. Torens, F. Nikodem, J.C. Dauer, J.S. Dittrich, Onboard functional requirements for specific category UAS and safe operation monitoring, in 6th CEAS Conference. CEAS, Burcharest, Romania (2017)
S. International. ARP4754A - Guidelines for development of civil aircraft and systems (2010)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Torens, C., Dauer, J.C., Adolf, F. (2018). Towards Autonomy and Safety for Unmanned Aircraft Systems. In: Durak, U., Becker, J., Hartmann, S., Voros, N. (eds) Advances in Aeronautical Informatics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75058-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75058-3_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-75057-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-75058-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)