UAV Use in Antarctica Draft 4 COMNAP Working Paper Includes Guidelines 29January2015

UAV Use in Antarctica–Risk/Benefit Analysis

Draft 4 ver 29 January 2015Prepared by Michelle Rogan-FinnemoreCOMNAP

Background

At ATCM XXXVII and CEP XXVII in Brasilia, Brazil, there was discussion on the increasing use of unmanned aerial systems (UASs) which include the deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in the Antarctic region. As a result, COMNAP, SCAR and IAATO were asked to consider UAV use in Antarctica and bring back to ATCM XXXVIII papers which explored risks and benefits associated with their use. In this paper COMNAP presents the practical benefits to national Antarctic programs, in particular in UAS application to science support, operations and logistics in the Antarctic region. The paper also presents the risks to human safety and the built environment in the Antarctic region. COMNAP recognises that there are other risks and benefits that are beyond the remit to COMNAP and therefore outside the scope of this paper. Therefore, this paper should be read together with the SCAR and the IAATO papers.

Consideration of issue

Technological advances have seen unprecedented leaps in UAS and UAV capability and deployability (see attachment 1). Technological advances have out-paced policy development on the issue and so many countries do not currently have domestic legislation to govern civil UAV use in their home countries.[1]

Some UAS are now readily available at low cost and so there is an increasing use of UAVs in the Antarctic region. Technological advances will continue and soon any national Antarctic program, non-governmental organisation or individual will have the ability to operate a UAV in the Antarctic region. This shifts aircraft operations from being only in the hands of pilots who are fully aware of operational constraints, Antarctic Treaty System recommendations, and best practice guidelines to those who may have little or no awareness of these.

UAVs, though small and remotely-piloted, are aircraft and, therefore, UAVs should be operated as safely as manned aircraft. Hazards and risks should be identified and assessed as for any airborne object and COMNAP recommends that the ATCM should consider developing guidelines for UAV use in the Antarctic region.

While the Antarctic region is very big, national Antarctic programs principally and deliberately work in relatively small operational areas, and, as a result, any UAV use is likely to be superimposed on top of areas where there is already human activity. The short-range of the smaller sized UAVs means that UAV use will be clustered around areas where there is ‘crowded’ operational space. This presents a risk to people in that space and to scientific infrastructure in that space, including stations, related infrastructure and other aircraft. Such areas already have operational restrictions and rules surrounding activities that can be undertaken there, including many such areas with airspace regulations. All current ASMAs have provisions with specific guidance in regards to access to and movement within, or over, the areas, including for landing or overflight of aircraft.

Benefits

National Antarctic programs see benefits from UAV use in the Antarctic Treaty area. They have the potential to improve our ability to deliver science and can reduce overall impact of national Antarctic programs amongst other benefits [for environmental and scientific benefits see SCAR paper]. The benefits presented here broadly fall within the categories of ‘safety’ and ‘logistics/operations’.

Safety
Because they are unmanned, there is no risk associated with crew and passengers on-board the aircraft. UAVs are highly deployable and can therefore be used for fire-fighting, search of missing persons and in the event of medical emergencies, if such situations occur within the designated, usually short-range of the UAV. They can also be used for quick reconnaissance-examples include crevasse detection, sea ice extent and fuel spill identification.

Logistics/Operations
The cost of purchasing a UAS is now within the means of many. Once purchased, there are low operational costs which are cheaper in most cases than any other aircraft, including balloon and satellite operations. Smaller UAS with UAV in the micro- to mini- range are easily transportable and highly deployable. Rotary type UAVs do not require taxi areas in order to take-off and climb. Most close range UAVs are powered by lithium polymer, rechargeable, sealed batteries. Some long endurance and high-altitude UAVs have solar panels. Some UAV models have 2-stage or 4-stage engines which use gas or other fossil fuels mixed with a blend of oils particular to the engine. Their use as an alternative to other fixed wing or rotary aircraft means there is a reduction in fossil fuel transportation to, and use in, Antarctica. Operating a UAS does require special skills and expertise, however, the costs associated with the necessary training of the operator is significantly less than costs involved with training of pilots and the flight crew of manned aircraft. UAVs can carry science payloads or can be used for delivery of equipment and small objects to field sites within their range.

Risks

The Antarctic is a dangerous place to operate aircraft given the extreme conditions. Removal of passengers including pilot and crew from aircraft is a distinct advantage to safety of human life in Antarctica. As with any operations, in the event of an accident, there are still risks to human bystanders on the ground, or on a vessel from where a UAV might be launched, and there are risks to the built environment including stations, related infrastructure and scientific instrumentation [for environmental and scientific risks see SCAR paper]. Under normal operations a UAV will undertake the following phases of flight:

·  Taxi (not necessary in a rotary-wing UAV)

·  Take-off (combined with climb in a rotary wing UAV)

·  Climb (combined with take-off in a rotary wing UAV)

·  Enroute

·  Descent

·  Landing

The taxi, take-off and landing phase often take place through predefined paths/areas (in/over airfield/skiways/helo pads) which already are sites generally free of people, but may include other aircraft operations. Under normal operations risks are generally confined to the possibility of enroute collision with other airborne objects, with built infrastructure or with birds. As ‘Search And Avoid’ (SAA) technology improves, the probability of risk to human life and to the built environment will decrease. There is also the possibility of radio signal and electromagnetic interference, especially in areas designated as “radio quiet” zones.

With a UAV, there is the possibility that an in-flight emergency may occur. Accounting for all possible modes of failure in a given mission is an intractable problem.[2] Failure simulation studies have shown that the vast majority (99.97%) of crashes (where a ‘crash’ is an impact on the earth’s surface) occur within 600 metres of the initial UAV failure location.[3] Robust machinery with electronic location devices should be used in order to optimise chance of recovery while minimising likelihood of pollution on impact.

UAS failure can be due to multiple factors, (some of which can be mitigated) including:

·  UAV operator error (Mitigated by training with certification/requirement for minimum number of flight hours)

·  UAV operator medical issue (Mitigated by availability of stand-by operator)

·  Loss of communications (Mitigated by “return to home” programming)

·  Loss of line of sight (Mitigated by operation only in daylight hours and only in clear weather conditions)

·  Equipment failure, including loss of power (Mitigated by equipment pre-check)

·  Improper maintenance of component of UAS or UAV (Mitigated by regular system maintenance schedule with certification and dedicated expert staff)

·  UAV mid-air collision with another object (mitigated by pre-planning, flight plan filing, consideration of specific station air operations guidelines; as SAA technology improves, the probability of this risk will decrease)

·  Weather

Failure simulation-results have shown that the vast majority of failures of UAS are due to general system failures rather than mid-air collisions.[4] Mishaps occur most frequently during the ‘enroute’ phase of flight.

In cases were a UAV crashes or is otherwise “lost” and is not recovered, the impact to the Antarctic environment may be beyond what might be considered reasonable and acceptable [see SCAR paper].

Recommendation

As with other aircraft operated in the Antarctic region, COMNAP considers that there are benefits and risks to the use of UAVs in the Antarctic region. The technology has the potential to provide support to Antarctic operations including science support. Low costs coupled with rapidly advancing technology mean there will be increased calls to deploy UAVs in the Antarctic region in the near future. COMNAP therefore recommends that the ATCM consider adopting guidelines on UAV use in the Antarctic region. A first draft of such guidelines is presented for discussion and COMNAP stands ready to assist.

DRAFT Guidelines (29 January 2015)

GENERAL

·  All national Antarctic program personnel require prior approval by their station or vessel manager in order to operate or deploy any UAS or UAV in the Antarctic Treaty area.

PREFLIGHT

·  Pilot must check weather forecast for time of operations. No UAVs will be launched during a period of bad weather or when the forecast is for deteriorating weather conditions [exception may be made when a UAV can assist in an emergency/SAR situation in order to prevent loss of life].

·  Pilot must plan and confirm all missions/operations with Station Manager in advance of planned activity to ensure there is no conflict with other flight operations.

·  Adequate take-off and landing sites must be identified before any UAV operation. As UAV requirements vary, at minimum, a proper landing site and surface must be available to safely recover the UAV after operations.

·  To uphold the aims and objectives of all ASMAs, all restrictions and any principles in all ASMAs including those found in the General Code of Conduct sections and in any Supporting Guidelines sections or attachments shall be considered in the planning of UAV operations.

·  [Any pre-programmed UAV routes and waypoints should be reviewed for accuracy by a second party before loading in the mission computer.]

·  [UAVs have batteries, so reference to guidance for transporting batteries on manned aircraft (while UAV is in transit to/from Antarctic region).]

CREW

·  All UAS operations require at least one pilot operator and one back-up operator, each with appropriate certification or qualifications or experience.

·  [As a minimum, the pilot operator requires an unexpired certificate of qualification identifying completion of an approved flight training course for the system to be operated.]

·  [As a minimum, the back-up operator requires an unexpired certificate of qualification identifying completion of an approved flight training course for the system to be operated and must remain with the pilot operator for the duration of the flight.]

FLIGHT

·  To uphold the aims and objectives of all ASMAs, all restrictions and any principles in all ASMAs including those found in the General Code of Conduct sections and in any Supporting Guidelines sections or attachments shall be adhered to during UAV operations.

·  There should be no operation of UAV within close range to any HSMs.

·  All operations should be conducted under day visual meteorological conditions only.

·  All UAV operations should take into consider ATCM Resolution 2 (2004) Guidelines for the Operation of Aircraft Near Concentrations of Birds in Antarctica.

·  Ensure a reliable communications link between the UAV and the pilot. Such communications should not interfere with other radio communications or with radio quiet zones.

·  All UAVs operated must have the ability to manually land in the case where autonomous programming encounters an error/failure or in cases where situation warrants.

·  In the event of an inflight emergency, the Station Manager should be alerted immediately and emergency response procedures should be invoked.

·  Upon completion of any UAV operation, appropriate reporting should be completed.

·  It is recommended all UAVs are installed with an electronic location device.

AIR WORTHINESS/SAFETY and REVIEWS

·  While safety is every person’s responsibility, the pilot operator will have overall responsibility for the safe use of the UAS for the duration of the operation. All station, field camp, or vessel safety policies have to be adhered to for the duration of the operation.

·  Establish and comply with regular and certified maintenance schedule for UAV and for all other components of the UAS-especially communications components.

·  The Station Manager may request proof of compliance before permitting UAV operation.

INCIDENTS

·  Accidents, incidents and near-misses should be reported as soon as possible to the Station Manager in the prescribed or most appropriate manner.

·  In the event of an emergency landing which results in a crash, the operator pilot must invoke established waste recovery procedures if safe to do so. If safety prevents recovery of crash debris, then site must be reported to the Station Manager and must be documented as per Station procedures.

Attachment 1: Characteristics of Unmanned Aerial Systems and Vehicles

Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs) are an emerging technology that can be widely used in various applications,[5] ranging from monitoring tasks, to item manipulation, cargo delivery, scientific investigation, photography acquisition and search and rescue (SAR). UASs are normally composed of a portable control station with a human operator on the ground, and one or more powered Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). UAVs can be equipped with various sensors specific to the task at hand or with communications devices or with other payloads. UAVs operate without an on-board pilot, but they are aircraft none-the-less. They can be radio controlled or pre-programmed. UAVs can often perform the same tasks as can be done by manned aerial vehicles, but are often faster, safer to human life, can be operated at lower costs and can be initially purchased at lower costs.[6] The continuous improvement in function and performance, and reduction in weight, size and cost of the system means that use of this technology is becoming common into various applications.

UAVs today cannot ‘sense and avoid’ (SAA) autonomously, but such technology is actively being worked on and will improve. SAA refers to the capability of an autonomous vehicle to detect objects, both stationary and mobile, that do not broadcast their position, which are in the vehicles path (or otherwise on a collision course) and, if necessary, alter the vehicles’ course to avoid a collision. In a manned aircraft, a human pilot can react if there is something in his/her view that should be avoided. In a UAS, the pilot is not on-board the aircraft and so cannot provide SAA capability. In addition to proximity to other aircraft (including fixed-wing, helicopters and balloons), UAVs are frequently operated in close proximity to the ground, and therefore, especially in the context of Antarctic use, to fauna and flora, areas of ice, ice free land, ice-covered and open water (including areas of scientific importance, ASPAs and ASMAs) and to the built environment (which includes scientific instrumentation and may include Historic Sites and Monuments (HSMs)).