Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Shawn Donley 1
ACGSC Meeting 102
Rev B, 10/08/08
ARP94910 Origins – Project Definition & Approval
• In 2007 the A-6 Systems panel completed AS94900 – Aerospace Standard
for FCS for Military Manned Aircraft
• The US Navy, Army and Air Force expressed support which justified
initiating the project
T1 - Tactical 1
Hornet, BATCAM, Raven,
Special Operations < 10 Dragon Eye, FPASS, Pointer,
1 Forces (SOF) Team ≤ 1,000 Hand launched ≤ 20 ≤ 60 <4
Wasp, BUSTER (rail-
Small Unit Company
Primarily launched), MAV
& below
EO/IR or
Comm
Relay
T2 - Tactical 2
Neptune, Tern, Mako, OAV-II,
Battalion/Brigade
2 ≤ 5,000 Mobile launched 20 - 450 ≤ 100 < 24 < 100 Shadow, Silver Fox,
Regiment SOF
ScanEagle, Aerosonde
Group/Flight
Op Area Definition
1 UA’s intended to operate only in Restricted and Warning
Areas under controlled and supervised conditions, or
in combat areas with few no-combatants present.
Op Area Definition
Backup Charts
Shawn Donley 15
ACGSC Meeting 102
Rev B, 10/08/08
Definition of a UAV
• Moreover a UAV :
– Is capable of sustained flight by aerodynamic means,
• Comment: Is jet lift considered “by aerodynamic means?”
– Is remotely piloted or automatically flies a pre- programmed flight profile,
– Is reusable,
– Is not classified as a guided weapon or similar one shot device designed for
the delivery of munitions.
Panel A6C5
Systems Panel membership: 47 total Components
• WG Mission
– Produce an aerospace standard that provides recommended
practices for the specification of the Flight Control System (FCS)of a
military Unmanned Aircraft (UA). The document will be titled
“ARP94910 Aerospace- Flight Control Systems - Design, Installation
and Test of, Military Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Specification Guide”.
• Document to be Based on:
– The document shall be closely related to the new standard for the
FCS of manned military aircraft, AS94900. That Aerospace Standard
(AS) takes the form of a specification whereas ARP94910 will be a
guide to the writing of a specification.
• Document Emphases
– The ARP will pay particular attention to:
• The definition of a UA flight control system.
• The definition of a range of FCS capability. (Ref. to UA categories
deleted)
• Flight safety, including the definition of minimum acceptable capability
following failure and the associated probability.
• Integration of the FCS with other systems and subsystems within the
UAS.
• (Ref. to impact of “Detect, Sense and Avoid” deleted.)
• Requirements Assessment
– Many national and international bodies are currently working to define
suitable airworthiness requirements to allow the certification of UASs
for flight within the non-segregated, controlled national airspaces of
participating countries. In support of these efforts, several Standards
Development Organizations (SDOs) are producing aerospace
standards, currently mostly for UASs rather than for UAs. The WG will
track these airworthiness and standards efforts and the ARP will
incorporate the relevant portions of the UA flight control requirements
and recommendations that result from them. References for these
requirements and recommendations will be cited. (See Appendix to
the TOR document - Documents of Interest.)
• Requirements Assessment
– Many national and international bodies are currently working to define
suitable airworthiness requirements to allow the certification of UASs
for flight within the non-segregated, controlled national airspaces of
participating countries. In support of these efforts, several Standards
Development Organizations (SDOs) are producing aerospace
standards, currently mostly for UASs rather than for UAs. The WG will
track these airworthiness and standards efforts and the ARP will
incorporate the relevant portions of the UA flight control requirements
and recommendations that result from them. References for these
requirements and recommendations will be cited. (See Appendix to
the TOR document - Documents of Interest.)
FAA Regulation 14 CFR 91 14 CFR 91, 101, and 103 None (AC 91-57)
UAS (Cat III). Capable of flying throughout all categories of airspace and conforms to Part 91 (i.e., all the
things a regulated manned aircraft must do including the ability to S&A). Airworthiness certification and
operator qualification are required. UASs are generally built for beyond LOS operations. Examples: Global
Hawk, Predator
UAS (Cat II). Nonstandard aircraft that perform special purpose operations. Operators must provide evidence
of airworthiness and operator qualification. Cat II UASs may perform routine operations within a specific set
of restrictions. Example: Shadow
UAS (Cat I). Analogous to RC models as covered in AC 91-57. Operators must provide evidence of
airworthiness and operator qualification. Small UASs are generally limited to visual LOS operations.
Examples: Raven, Dragon Eye.
The JUAS COE has since further divided these three categories into six categories, as shown in Figure A.4.
ACGSC Meeting 102 26
15-17 Oct 2008
Rev B, 10/08/08
Domestic Use UAS “Levels” From DoD UAV 2007
Roadmap
Current System Attributes
Raven, Dragon Eye, FPASS, Pointer, Systems under 20 lbs, operating below
Level 1 2 – 20 ≤3,000
BUSTER, MAV VFR airspace
Systems operating at or
Reaper, Global Hawk, N-UCAS, above 18,000 ft MSL fall
Level 5 Any > 12,500 ≥ 18,000
HAA, NSMV under Class A airspace
standards
– SDOs from DoD roadmap 2007 & UAV Forum, see updated Table below
– Also, in Europe, EUROCAE and ETSI are working standards
SDO
Category of Information
AIAA ASTM RTCA SAE
No. of Standards:
• RTCA
– 3 MASPS in work – top level and not duplicative
• ASTM
– 11 released, 12 in work
– 5 of these 23 are relevant but not duplicative
• SAE ASD AS-4 & GPD G-10
– 8 released – top level or training and not duplicative
• AIAA
– 1 released – terminology, superseded by ASTM spec
• EUROCONTROL
– 1 released – list of UAS standards needed, of interest but not
duplicative
ACGSC Meeting 102 30
15-17 Oct 2008
Rev B, 10/08/08
UAS Stnds and Airworth. – Airworthiness Bodies & Docs
1. SCOPE
2. REFERENCES
3. REQUIREMENTS
3.1 General System Requirements
Applicable.
3.1.1 Safety and Operability Considerations
Probably applicable but will require a re-write to remove references to pilot and AFCF.
3.1.2 Reliability Considerations
May need to consider new vehicle classification.
3.1.3 Redundancy Considerations
Probably applicable but may need to be rewritten to consider new vehicle classification
3.1.4 Maintainability Considerations
Mostly applicable but needs rework to reference ground station, maintenance concepts and
also needs to consider Contingency Management
3.1.5 Survivability Requirements
Applicable but may need to consider new vehicle classifications.
3.1.6 Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Limits
Applicable