In
their publication, Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the
National Airspace System Roadmap, the Federal Aviation Administration offers us
a brief understanding of the challenges that must be addressed, and ultimately
overcome, in order to adequately satisfy the safety and security needs of
operating unmanned systems publicly (2013). In regards to how we are going to
overcome the challenge of separating unmanned systems and deconflicting flight
paths, they discuss the need for ground-based sense and avoid (SAA) systems and
airborne SAA systems. Included in these discussions are the airspace class
restrictions. For example, the FAA seems to be integrating unmanned systems
into the existing airspace class designations in order to incorporate rather
than creating a new airspace class to accommodate.
To
be completely honest, I’m not sure if I agree with this path of action.
Incorporating numberless, tiny (comparatively) unmanned systems into an
existing airspace system seems to be a deconfliction nightmare. If, however,
the FAA created a separate airspace class, let’s call it Class J airspace, that
restricts travel within this airspace exclusively to smaller, commercial and
personal usage unmanned systems, then the majority of deconfliction has already
been accomplished. Within this airspace, travel lanes and specific rules for
altitude depending on direction could easily tackle the majority of traffic
avoidance concerns. Most of this unmanned air traffic could occur between
200-400 feet, below the allowable altitude for congested and
less-than-congested airspace.
In
the event that a helicopter or other designated manned aircraft needs to drop
below 600 feet due to approved mission requirements or emergency requirements,
then the sense and avoid systems could be utilized and be compatible with the
other modes (FAA, 2013, pg. 22). However, this should be the exception, so as
to avoid oversaturation and strain on the airspace system.
Not
every unmanned system would be able to utilize Class J airspace. Larger
unmanned systems, or unmanned systems that fulfill identical roles to manned
systems, should be treated as a manned system for the purposes of traffic
avoidance. However, rather than a “see and avoid” system of rules, a sense and
avoid system should follow the same rules and programmed (if autonomous) or
applied (if remotely piloted) to the unmanned system.
Ultimately,
the issue of traffic avoidance in unmanned systems is a complicated one. The
FAA is hard at work towards a solution. However, I genuinely hope that the FAA
uses all options and scenarios to assist them in the decision making process –
even if that means creating a new airspace class and a new infrastructure to
accommodate the problem of unmanned airspace. Doing so, may prove costly
initially, but would undoubtedly pay off in the economically beneficial world
of unmanned systems.
Reference
Federal Aviation Administration. (2013). Integration
of civil unmanned aircraft systems in the
national airspace system roadmap (First Edition). Retrieved from http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/uas_roadmap_2013.pdf
