Mock Certification Basis for an Unmanned Rotorcraft for Precision Agricultural Spraying
This technical report presents the results of a case study using a hazard-based approach to develop preliminary design and performance criteria for an unmanned agricultural rotorcraft requiring airworthiness certification. This case study is one of the first in the public domain to examine design and performance criteria for an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) in tandem with its concept of operations. The case study results are intended to support development of airworthiness standards that could form a minimum safety baseline for midsize unmanned rotorcraft performing precision agricultural spraying operations under beyond visual line-of-sight conditions in a rural environment. This study investigates the applicability of current methods, processes, and standards for assuring airworthiness of conventionally piloted (manned) aircraft to assuring the airworthiness of UAS. The study started with the development of a detailed concept of operations for precision agricultural spraying with an unmanned rotorcraft (pp. 5-18). The concept of operations in conjunction with a specimen unmanned rotorcraft were used to develop an operational context and a list of relevant hazards (p. 22). Minimum design and performance requirements necessary to mitigate the hazards provide the foundation of a proposed (or mock) type certification basis. A type certification basis specifies the applicable standards an applicant must show compliance with to receive regulatory approval. A detailed analysis of the current airworthiness regulations for normal-category rotorcraft (14 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 27) was performed. Each Part 27 regulation was evaluated to determine whether it mitigated one of the relevant hazards for the specimen UAS. Those regulations that did were included in the initial core of the type certification basis (pp. 26-31) as written or with some simple modifications. Those regulations that did not mitigate a recognized hazard were excluded from the certification basis. The remaining regulations were applicable in intent, but the text could not be easily tailored. Those regulations were addressed in separate issue papers. Exploiting established regulations avoids the difficult task of generating and interpreting novel requirements, through the use of acceptable, standardized language. The rationale for the disposition of the regulations was assessed and captured (pp. 58-115). The core basis was then augmented by generating additional requirements (pp. 38-47) to mitigate hazards for an unmanned sprayer that are not covered in Part 27.