Risk of Drones encounters with manned aircraft in the National Airspace System

Risk of Drones encounters with manned aircraft in the National Airspace System
Abstract
The research problem identified is analyzing the risk factors of incorporating unmanned piloted aircraft into the National Airspace to the United States and the manned aircraft, which operates in the National Airspace. The methodology employed was quantitative statistical analysis using hypothesis testing for concluding whether there is a risk factor associated with unmanned aircraft or not. The sample is chosen randomly from three communities; Queens, Long Island, and Brooklyn, close to the New York district airports JFK & LaGuardia. The findings concluded that there is no risk factor associated with the unmanned aircraft's incorporation, which shows that its various applications and purposes can be utilized for military missions adding more value and saving costs in this technologically advanced era.
Introduction
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Drones) are revolutionizing data acquisition in the fields of firefighting, precision agriculture surveying, construction, and even accident forensics. They are an invaluable tool for photography and real estate services providing a low-cost and substitutive alternative to helicopters. Hobbyists and enthusiasts, while drones are Increasingly affordable and user-friendly, have also opened the field to a host of opening a burgeoning consumer market and increasing the rate of innovation and development. As drones find use in ever more applications, regulations have been developed to assure safe operation and integrate drones into the national airspace (NAS).
There's been immense development in the avionics field, which has resulted in numerous automatic technologies, one of which is remote controlled or unmanned piloted aircraft, advancing the machine intelligence and autonomy to further technological development (Lim, 2018). An autonomous remote-controlled aircraft has numerous advantages due to its potential for propelling autonomously, helping accomplish several dangerous missions (Zhang, 2018).
With several advantages, unmanned piloted aircraft pose several challenges and risk factors. Two primary ones are people's safety concerns on the ground and the risk of collision with the manned aircraft in the National Airspace System (Zhang, 2018). As with certain advantages, UAV has several risk factors; it is necessary to analyze those risk factors. For assessing the risk factor, statistical analysis is done for quantitative results to conclude the final findings.
Research Project Synopsis
Strict regulations prohibit Unmanned Aircraft Systems (drones) from sharing airspace with human-crewed airplanes. Still, a program started in May of 2018 when the U.S. Dept. of Transportation launched the Unmanned Aircraft System Integrated Pilot Programs (UAS IPP), granting ten leading participants the opportunity to test ten different use cases for drones; this program's first year was dedicated to developing flight procedures.
FedEx began initial operations off-airport in areas of increasing operational complexity, including places such as the Memphis Riverfront Park, Memphis Redbird Ball Park, and Liberty Bowl Coliseum. FedEx conducted small, unmanned aircraft systems pilot and visual observer training during the day and night-time operations and developed and evaluated small UAS flight performance on simulated missions before progressing to the Memphis International Airport to conduct UAS flight tests.
To understand why this is so significant, it is important to understand how strict the current regulatory environment is; the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration currently restricts the use of drones within five miles of an airport," explains Murdock (FedEx). "Through the Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority's UAS IPP, we are working with the FAA to test use cases for on-airport drone usage safely.
Our findings will help inform future policy-making towards using drones at and around the perimeter of airports in the United States. "We believe drones could help improve efficiencies around aircraft inspections and maintenance at our World Hub at Memphis International Airport," says Murdock and other airports around the country. We also believe that drones can be used to supplement our existing airport perimeter surveillance and runway/taxiway foreign Object Debris program (FOD) detection activities.
However, in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)Mandatory Occurrence Report (MOR) data, 7,240 MORs submitted to the FAA from June 5, 2016, to June 5, 2017, in the New York City communities around the major airports shows these data presented in various ways (e.g., summary, by quarter, by airspace) to showing possible applications to performance monitoring and development of a quantitative model to numerically determine the probability of collision and the probability of a fatality given a collision inherent in the physical parameters of the MOR.
New York City and its environs might be one of the best cities and most populous globally. With its inhabitants of 8.6 million people, such a population, it is tough for unmanned aircraft vehicles (sUAS) drones pilots to comply with government regulations flying over people. The rule prohibits flying over people unless, of course, the operation is involved in the emergency safety operations.
The second problem is that large areas of NYC fall under Class B Airspace. Bigger airports with large runways and controlled towers fall under this airspace. Both JFK and LaGuardia are Class B Airports. It is impossible to fly in Class B Airspace unless you have prior authorization from Air Traffic Control (ATC). This applies to both commercial and hobby flights.
Both commercial and hobby drone flyers must now have permission to fly in any controlled airspace. Both can use the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) to gain that permission at JFK, but LGA is not LAANC active yet. So, areas under LGA ATC control can only be accessed via a 107.41 Airspace Authorization via the FAA Drone Zone. And as of now, that is only available for commercial operators. This essentially shuts all LGA down for hobbyists unless they fly at a Recreational Flyer Fixed Site. And there is only one in LGA airspace.
Fig. 1
This snapshot shows the New York City Airspace. Large portions of this map have been covered by Class B Airspace (The Shaded Blue Area).
However, the popularity of the DRONES has prompted legislative talks over their pros and cons. As a result, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published the regulation in 2016, which stipulates drone usage conditions within the United States soil and airspace.
However, the FAA guideline is loose, and the federal response lags, which forced states, cities, and towns to enforce local ordinances.
Problem Statement
Drones encounter with manned aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS). With the increasing numbers and use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the National Airspace and the proximity to manned aircraft, the risk relation to human-crewed aircraft is alarming and on the increase. In the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)Mandatory Occurrence Report (MOR) data, the severity categorization model provides a snapshot of these risk factors. Similarly, in situations inherent in an encounter, severity quantifies the likelihood of collision and fatality., In the MOR data, it separates serious events and lesser and non-events.
Therefore, we are proposing that the public is worried about drones as they are less worried about police cameras in the area, , if answered, Drones are a major concern of the public in the sense of safety because they are a risk to the National Airspace System.
Research Question
Is there a significant risk factor of Drone to the National Airspace System based on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) mandatory occurrence report (MOR) implemented during the period examined?
Literature Review
The United States has increasingly been using the Unmanned Piloted Aircraft for military purposes because of which there is a high demand for it (Weibel & Hansman, 2005) (see figure 2). Figure 3 highlights the different applications of unmanned piloted aircraft. ** It's usage and application is very wide, providing low-cost vehicles to the National forces which can save their time by prompting more communication and transferring situational or weather-related information as a feasible means (Paul, 2013).
Fig. 2
U.S. Military UAV flight hours
Fig. 3
Attractive UAV Application
FAA (Federal Aviation Authority) has given out several policies to ensure the safe operations of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAVs) (Weibel & Hansman, 2005). After the manufacturing of these UAVs is completed, there is a certain certification level that the aircraft needs to achieve to be defined as safe for traveling within the NAS (Weibel & Hansman, 2005). Since there are different classes from A to G of aircraft which follow a different set of design rules and architecture by Federal Aviation Regulation, it ensures that the aircraft is safe to travel within its class altitude within the NAS (Weibel & Hansman, 2005).
Another research highlights the operational importance of using unmanned aircraft to conduct various missions (Paul, 2013). Since the risk factors are the ones that are studied to incorporate the unmanned aircraft, one of the researchers experimented and estimated the risk factors for the people on the ground as well as for the manned aircraft in the NAS (Zhang, 2018). The result showed that unmanned aircraft do pose a risk for the people, especially in the areas which are densely populated, while the risk of fatalities in the midair is also high (Zhang, 2018). Ground impact risk analysis depends upon the UAV size, as shown in figure 4 (Weibel & Hansman, 2005). This hasn't taken into account the safety measures like parachute landing and flight termination systems. With these kinds of safety measures in place, fatalities' risk is reduced and even eradicated (Weibel & Hansman, 2005). This safety analysis indicates that models can be put in place to mitigate risk factors like operating unmanned aircraft with certain size and operational limitations (Weibel & Hansman, 2005).
Fig. 4
UAV Classes for Ground Impact Analysis
In one of the researches, it is highlighted that to integrate the unmanned piloted aircraft with manned aircraft, the provision of Separation Assurance and Collision Avoidance (SA&CA) is very important (Lim, 2018). The integration requires situational awareness to avoid interference and collisions between the two kinds of aircraft. The system should also be advanced in understanding the traffic and alert and provide information on any situation to avoid any disturbances within the National Airspace (Lim, 2018). Another research also emphasizes a risk factor, but it can be overcome by putting a more safe and sound regulatory environment (Clarke, 2014). Certain liability laws act as a deterrent to any negligence that might occur (Clarke, 2014).
In another research, the risk of these small drones was identified and compared with the FAA data of wildlife strikes as more than 250g weighted drones had to be registered with the agency (Dourado, 2016). There are numerous incidents where the bird's collision occurs with the manned aircraft since NAS is home to billions of birds, especially with the flocks of birds, and has caused minimal damage to the aircraft and the people, as shown in figures 5 and 6 (Dourado, 2016). In more than 25 years, around 12 wildlife strikes have proven to be fatal (Dourado, 2016).
Fig. 5
Reported Wildlife Strikes
Fig. 6
Casualties from Wildlife Strikes
The bird strikes prove very useful in comparing the small drones' risk as the magnitude of damage estimates the incidents where the UAVs collide with the manned aircraft (Dourado, 2016). One of the major differences is the fact that these UAVs are remotely operated by humans, unlike birds, which decreases the chances of fatal incidents too much more (Dourado, 2016). With proper traffic systems and sensors in place, as regulated by the FAA, the UAVs can be spotted to ensure no incidents occur, especially keeping the altitude and speed parameters in account (Weibel & Hansman, 2005). The research findings also concluded that there has never been any collision of the commercial drones or the quadrocopter as there are currently around 1 million UAVs in the U.S. airspace (Dourado, 2016).
Hypothesis Statements
To answer the research question, the following hypotheses will be analyzed, our Null hypothesis will be notated Ho, and our Alternate hypothesis will be notated. Ha.
H . There is no statistically significant risk factor of Drone to the National Airspace System based on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) mandatory occurrence report (MOR) implemented during the period examined.
H?. There are statistical risk factors of Drone to the National Airspace System based on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) mandatory occurrence report (MOR) implemented during the period examined.
Assumptions
The research investigation is of Drones' safety rate in the three communities (Brooklyn, Queens & Long Island) around New York districts' main Airports JFK & LaGuardia Airport. Our problem is that drones are a safety issue. Therefore, we propose that the public is worried about drones as they are less worried about police cameras in the System. Area, if answered, Drones are a major concern of the public in the sense of safety because they are a risk to the National Airspace System.
Randomly generated data for three cities will simulate drones' activities in various areas of New York City. Because we are running three different locations (Brooklyn, Queens & Long Island), ANOVA is the Statistical Test of choice.
Analysis of Variance results:
Data stored in separate columns
Column statistics
Column statistics
Column
n
Mean
Std. Dev.
Std. Error
Queens
50
50.42
30.089045
4.2552335
Brooklyn
50
49.44
25.303997
3.5785255
Long Island
50
44.94
29.77563
4.21091
ANOVA table
Source
DF
SS
MS
F-Stat
P-value
Columns
2
854.01333
427.00667
0.52668517
0.5917
Error
147
119179.32
810.74367
Total
149
120033.33
Tukey HSD results (95% level)
Queens subtracted from
Difference
Lower
Upper
P-value
Brooklyn
-0.98
-14.463332
12.503332
0.9838
Long Island
-5.48
-18.963332
8.0033322
0.6018
Brooklyn subtracted from
Difference
Lower
Upper
P-value
Long Island
-4.5
-17.983332
8.9833322
0.7096
Based on the simulated data and the p-value of 0.5917, which is greater than alpha ?=0.05, there is no statistical risk of drones in the cities. Therefore, we failed to reject the Null Hypothesis that there are no statistical risk factors to the National Airspace System based on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) mandatory occurrence report (MOR) implemented during the period examined.
The outcome measure will be based on the test score of intervals/ratios of Drones occurrences in groups differences in paired observations; there will be more the two groups in repeated measures of Analysis of Variance. The number of independent variables will be one of the three variables; one factor (one way) ANOVA will be the choice test.
Review of the method used:
Hypothesis testing was adopted to assess the risk factor as this method of stats includes two different statements, which are termed as the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. There are significant levels and p values in the hypothesis testing, which indicates the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis and the distance between the sample mean and the null hypothesis value, respectively. Here, the null hypothesis is the statement indicating that there is no significant risk factor. In contrast, the alternative hypothesis is the statement indicating that there exists a risk factor for incorporating UAVs into the NAS.
ANOVA is employed as it is a test to determine whether the sample's result is significant and whether or not the null hypothesis needs to be rejected or the alternate hypothesis needs to be accepted.
Results
The result of hypothesis testing in three different communities around the airports of New York (Queens, Long Island, and Brooklyn) shows that there is no significant risk factor for these communities if the UAVs are incorporated within the NAS. Since the confidence interval was at 95%, the alpha-value is 0.05, while the p-value calculated from the sample is 0.5917, which is greater than the value of alpha. As a result, the null hypothesis is not rejected. It shows significant results, which means no statistical risk involved in integrating UAVs in the National Airspace System (NAS).
Conclusion
This technologically advanced vehicle's importance can't be overlooked, especially in innovative techniques and more autonomous machinery and artificial intelligence. They can serve several military purposes when used rightfully and prove various functionalities by saving human resources. FAA has laid down various regulations for the UAVs' design and purpose so that safety is guaranteed.
Several kinds of research have highlighted the risk factors, especially in metropolitan areas and the areas near the airport. Still, several mitigation measures have taken, which have reduced the risk and made the unmanned piloted aircrafts safe and sound for the public to be used for several military advantages as the literature review and hypothesis testing have identified the importance of UAVs and how they are safe for the public and the manned aircraft with the appropriate policy-making and regulations to mitigate the otherwise presented risk factors.
The findings indicate no significant risk factors even in the most populous communities near airports to identify both kinds of primary risks; ground impact and midair collisions. Some of the researchers have identified high-risk factors. Still, they have also highlighted the importance and operational feasibility of these UAVs. The research has concluded and emphasized that mitigation measures and safety regulations are more important in analyzing the gaps within them so these UAVs can be safely incorporated.
Even though there might be few risk factors, the importance of these UAVs overrides them, for which there have been several mitigating measures ensuring the safety of the people and the aircraft in the NAS. There have never been any such incidents that have witnessed any fatalities due to the drones currently operating in the NAS, showing that the risk is minimal and is not severe, which cannot be mitigated easily.
References
Bati, F., Smiley, G., & Walton, M. (2018). The Acceptable Level of Risk and Its Application to Commercial
Clarke, R. (2014). The regulation of civilian drones' impacts on public safety. Computer Law and Security Review.
Dourado, E. (2016, March 14). Do Consumer Drones Endanger the National Airspace? Evidence from Wildlife Strike Data. Mercatus Centre.
Flying Drones in NYC – Drone Laws Explained-Retrieved from https://www.thedroneu.com/blog/flying-drones-in-nyc-drone-laws/
Introduction to Drone/UAS/UAV Safety and Use -Retrieved from https://extension.ucmerced.edu/programs-and-courses/personal-development/introduction-droneuasuav-safety-and-use
Lim, Y. (2018). Avionics Human-Machine Interfaces and Interactions for Manned and Unmanned Aircraft. Progress in Aerospace Sciences.
Monitoring Risk Associated with Operations of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System: Models for Analysis of Mandatory Occurrence Reports involving UAS-Manned Aircraft Encounters-Retrieved from https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/37058
Paul, T. (2013). Operational Considerations for Teaming Manned and Unmanned Helicopter. J. Intell Robot Syst.
Weibel, R. E., & Hansman, R. J. (2005). SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS FOR OPERATION OF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM.
Zhang, X. (2018). Safety Assessment and Risk Estimation for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Operating in National Airspace System. Journal of Advanced Transportation.