A Case for the Case Analysis

In my Master's Course, Unmanned Aerospace Systems, we had to complete a Case Analysis. In this case analysis, we researched, developed, and presented a case revolving around a significant issue in the world of unmanned systems. My case analysis delved into the problem of traffic management in unmanned systems.

First and foremost, I think a Case Analysis approach to analyzing anything is all about learning by doing. The Case Analysis forces you to examine the case by all angles and perspectives. By the end of the presentation (if you did your case analysis correctly), you are very confident in your position. You could argue your position with legitimacy.

I think perhaps the most beneficial aspect of performing a case analysis is identifying the "Significance of the Issue." In past papers or presentations I have made for a class or professionally, there's a temptation to skim through the significance of the issue. In those past experiences, occasionally I secretly hoped that others would either not see the plot holes in my analysis or that they would be too lazy to investigate them themselves - thereby I was able to maintain a semblance of expertise. However, when you truly examine the significance of an issue or problem you are able to identify all of the problems and holes. In doing so, you are forced to address those problems and can ACTUALLY maintain expertise when those problems are identified by a third-party.

The second point that the case analysis forces you to consider is the advantages and disadvantages of ALL solutions - not just the disadvantages of the solution you don't like and the advantages of the one you do. In other words, in examining all of the pros and cons, you are able to determine if the solution you prefer is actually the best solution. Often, in my case analysis, I found myself convincing myself that a previously harbored idea may not be the best one. As a result, my proposal changed into something different than where I started - but it changed into something better.

In all, though it was a difficult project (the longest paper I've had to complete toward my Master's degree), I am grateful to have taken part in it. Again, it forced learning upon me by forcing action. As a result, my confidence in the issue grew as I realized that my expertise on the issue was increasing as well. I have no doubt that I can and will use lessons I learned from this case analysis in my future courses and my professional life. I will be better capable of identifying the true problem and critiquing the solutions.

Request for Proposal: Unmanned Systems in Post-Natural Disasters

The 2011 earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan left more than 15,000 dead, with roughly 9,000 bodies recovered in the days and weeks later (Oskin, 2015). Many of those people may have been alive for hours or even days after the event. Such an astronomical number of needless dead prompt the question of how could it be avoided? One solution likely could have contributed to hundreds of saved lives: unmanned aerial vehicles.

In preventing the future loss of life in similar catastrophes, the author submits a request for proposal, to produce a UAS that would help identify and locate the living amongst the destruction created by earthquakes, tornados, tsunamis, and hurricanes among other natural disasters. The aircraft will need sufficient loiter capability, endurance, and payload capacity to accommodate the equipment necessary to make it a reasonable and viable solution to the problem. Some of the baseline and derived requirements, as well as testing and timeline requirements are listed below:

1.       Baseline Requirements

1.1   Air Vehicle Element

1.1.1          Shall have an endurance of at least 5 hours

1.1.2          Shall have a loiter speed of a maximum of 30 miles per hour

1.1.3          Shall have a typical cruising altitude of 400 feet

1.1.4          Shall be deployable on-station in less than 15 minutes

1.1.5          Shall house power-plant to vehicle

1.1.6          Shall house a separate power-plant to payload

1.2   Payload

1.2.1          Shall be capable of color daytime video operation of up to 1000 feet AGL

1.2.2          Shall be capable of infrared (IFR) video operation of up to 1000 feet AGL

1.2.3          Shall be capable of 360° lateral video operation regardless of airframe heading

1.2.4          Shall provide capability to provide real-time data to controllers and search and rescue personnel on the ground

1.2.5          Shall be capable of transmitting locations of targets to within 10 meters to operators

1.3   Communications and Control

1.3.1          Shall be capable of manual operations

1.3.2          Shall be capable of autonomous orbit operations around a target

1.3.3          Shall operate on available frequency that does not interfere with other search and rescue signals

1.3.4          Shall be protected from exterior data-link threats

1.3.5          Shall have a radius of action of at least 10 miles

2.       Testing Requirements

2.1   Air Vehicle Element

2.1.1          Conduct ground test of power-plant operation at cruising power to ensure at least 5 hours of operation

2.1.2          Conduct controlled ground test of system speed capacity to ensure stall speed is no greater than 30 miles per hour

2.1.3          Test the timeframe to assemble and operate the system from support vehicle to lift-off

2.1.4          Inspect power-plant, airframe, and systems after various tests to identify stresses if any

2.2   Payload

2.2.1          Conduct ground test of 360° lateral video operation while installed on airframe

2.2.2          Test daytime video for adequate operation up to a distance of 1000 feet

2.2.3          Conduct nighttime video for infrared operation up to a distance of 1000 feet

2.2.4          Test the GPS targeting system to ensure target location to within 10 meters.

2.3   Communication and Control

2.3.1          Conduct “hacking” test to ensure security of data-link systems

2.3.2          Conduct ground test of manual controls

2.3.3          Conduct controlled ground test of software to ensure autonomous orbit capability

2.3.4          Test acceptable performance of radio transmission and reception up to 10 miles

2.4   Flight/Operational Test

2.4.1          Conduct a timed flight of 5 hours and a reach of 10 miles while conducting:

2.4.1.1    Test of manual controls

2.4.1.2    Test of autonomous controls and orbit

2.4.1.3    Test of real-time video

2.4.1.3.1           Daytime color video

2.4.1.3.2           Nighttime IFR

2.4.1.4    Operational test of deployment time of 15 minutes or less

3.       Timeline:

Concept Design and Research: 14 weeks

Preliminary Design and Detail Design: 10 weeks

Ground Systems Tests: 2 weeks

Prototype Build and Operational Tests: 14 weeks

Development and Certification: 12 weeks

Production: 12 months

Total Timeline: 24 months

Ultimately, this timeline is relatively short. The argument for this is that the majority of system requirements could be fulfilled by commercially-off-the-shelf (COTS) products. The airframe, power plant, video systems, and data-link systems could be garnered from already produced products. The challenge would be to effectively integrate these systems into a collaborative whole.

The production time only consists of 36%. The justification for this is the aforementioned point of using COTS products. The production time would mainly entail assembly of COTS into a usable system.

The design phases accumulate to more than 30% of the total design-to-operational-use window. The rationale for this is the inevitable and time consuming decomposition of low-level requirements (Leowen, 2013). For example, one of the low level requirements is to accomplish a loitering orbit, but what if the wind is relatively constant from the East? The aircraft will need to be able to compensate for weather. As a result, the aircraft should also provide weather monitoring and wind-speed measurements to the operators. All of these factors and more will add to the total equation and must be considered in the design phases.

Considering the loiter, endurance, and payload requirements, the airframe will more than likely need to be a fixed wing aircraft with either a catapult launch capability or a hand-launch capability. However, with the power plant needed to satisfy the endurance requirements, hand launch may not be feasible. Regardless, test-site considerations should be deliberated. Additionally, considering the dangerous and austere environments it will be employed, a parachute recovery may also be considered and implemented.

References:

Leowen, H. (2013). Requirements based UAV design process explained. Retrieved from                                       http://www.micropilot.com/pdf/requirements-based-uav.pdf

Oskin, B. (2015, May 7). Japan earthquake & tsunami of 2011: facts and information. Retrieved from                 http://www.livescience.com/39110-japan-2011-earthquake-tsunami-facts.html

Unmanned Aerial Systems in Law Enforcement

The potential uses of unmanned systems stretch across a wide range of missions and tasks – anything from farming to national border security.  However, there is one area of unmanned aerial systems usage that is particularly interesting to me.  My brother is a law enforcement officer in the State of Utah.  Utah Highway Patrol owns and uses a helicopter for various law enforcement uses. The uses of helicopters and airplanes in law enforcement include, vehicle pursuit, firefighting, counterterrorism, traffic control, surveillance and even prisoner transport.  The problem with using aircraft in law enforcement is the cost. 

My brother, who has a family of four, makes a very modest $40,000 per year to perform the essential job of keeping his community safe. Yet, a Bell 206 JetRanger costs around $1 million, the equivalent of the yearly salaries of 25 police officers like my brother.  Needless to say, the costs of obtaining and maintaining aircraft significantly cut into the budgets of law enforcement around the country. The U.S. Department of Justice reported that the average yearly cost of maintaining and flying helicopters in law enforcement approaches $300,000, with only 1,100 hours of operation (2009).  That doesn’t include the original purchase price of the aircraft, or the salaries, certification, and training of the pilots and maintenance personnel.

            The three systems that I would like to highlight that could easily fulfill these tasks are the Puma AE, the UAVS Phoenix 60, and the AeroEnvironment Qube UAS. The Puma AE is a fixed wing aircraft that is large enough to accommodate most of the equipment needed to fulfill the majority of law enforcement operations. It has a range of 10 miles, a speed of 60 miles per hour, and a loiter time of 3.5 hours. With a price tag of roughly $30,000, it is 3% of the cost of a Bell 206, and has a minute fraction of the hourly cost to operate – all the while being capable of performing 96% of the law enforcement mission currently provided by manned systems (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009).

            The UAVS Phoenix 60 is a far cheaper option, however it eliminates some capabilities compared to the Puma. This UAS is a 15 pound quadrotor capable of 40 minutes of flight and VTOL and hover operations. This drone would be used within line-of sight operations only utilizing the many visual and observational technologies it provides. The range and endurance could limit operations, for example it wouldn’t be very feasible for vehicle or personnel pursuits in most cases. However, those missions only account for 2.5% of law enforcement aviation operations (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009). The estimated cost of this system is $10,000. The cost savings may very well be worth the limitations.

The AeroEnvironment Qube is similar in capability to the Phoenix 60, but is even smaller which provides more flexibility in operations. For example, if a foot pursuit begins, the Qube could be tethered to a police vehicle – thus increasing its endurance and enhancing its range to that of the vehicle. With the bird’s eye view, law enforcement could satisfy most of the mission requirements. However, being so small it may have difficulty performing another significant mission of UAS in law enforcement: traffic citations. Traffic citations account for 20% of the law enforcement mission for aviation (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009). In order to give citations, the UAS must have certain equipment aboard to detect the citation.  With a payload of only 3 pounds, it’s uncertain if this UAS could manage the equipment properly.

            Using unmanned systems do not come without negatives, however. The public perception of drones flying around observing people is less than positive – even though manned law enforcement aircraft are already doing that. In many states, legislation has been enacted requiring probable cause warrants before drones may be used in an investigation (Harris, 2014). Additionally, safety would be a concern. Without the robust and hardened capabilities of a helicopter, these UAS are more susceptible to weather and adversary conditions.  The public concern for safety in the event of a crash must be considered.

            In summary, the cost benefits and savings of using UAS would substantially boost the capabilities of law enforcement around the country. Perhaps the savings could even be applied to the salaries of the officers on the ground, or in boosting their equipment and safety gear. Ultimately, it’s the people of this country that we want to benefit, and UAS in law enforcement would greatly help in that effort.

Reference

U.S. Department of Justice. (2009). Aviation units in large law enforcement agencies,        2007(NCJ 226672). Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aullea07.pdf

Harris, S. (2014, October). Unmanned aerial vehicles: more than a surveillance tool. The Police     Chief, (81), 66-67.