Results for “Unmanned Aircraft Systems” — Page 12

NASA NTRS2016

Systems and Methods for Collaboratively Controlling at Least One Aircraft

An unmanned vehicle management system includes an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) control station controlling one or more unmanned vehicles (UV), a collaborative routing system, and a communication network connecting the UAS and the collaborative routing system. The collaborative routing system being configured to receive flight parameters from an operator of the UAS control station and, based on the received flight parameters, automatically present the UAS control station with flight plan options to enable the operator to operate the UV in a defined airspace.

Estkowski, Regina I.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

UAS Pilot Assessments of Display and Alerting for the Next Generation Airborne Collision Avoidance System Xu

Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) must comply with specific standards to operate in the National Airspace System (NAS). Among the requirements are the detect and avoid (DAA) capabilities, which include display, alerting, and guidance specifications. Previous studies have queried pilots for their subjective feedback on these display elements on earlier systems; the present study sought pilot evaluations with an initial iteration of the unmanned variant of a Next Generation Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS XU). Sixteen participants piloted simulated aircraft with both standalone and integrated DAA displays. Their opinions were gathered using post-block and post-simulation questionnaires as well as guided debriefs. The data showed pilots had better understanding and comfort with the system when using an integrated display. Pilots also rated ACAS Xu alerting and guidance as generally acceptable and effective. Implications for further development of ACAS XU and DAA displays are discussed.

unmanned aircraft systems↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

UAS Pilot Assessments of Display and Alerting for the Airborne Collision Avoidance System XU

Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) must comply with specific standards to operate in the National Airspace System (NAS). Among the requirements are the detect and avoid (DAA) capabilities, which include display, alerting, and guidance specifications. Previous studies have queried pilots for their subjective feedback on these display elements on earlier systems; the present study sought pilot evaluations with an initial iteration of the unmanned variant of a Next Generation Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS XU). Sixteen participants piloted simulated aircraft with both standalone and integrated DAA displays. Their opinions were gathered using post-block and post-simulation questionnaires as well as guided debriefs. The data showed pilots had better understanding and comfort with the system when using an integrated display. Pilots also rated ACAS Xu alerting and guidance as generally acceptable and effective. Implications for further development of ACAS XU and DAA displays are discussed.

unmanned aircraft systems↗

NASA NTRS2021

Best Practices Identified Through the Completion of UAS Flight Demonstrations

After several years of research into Detect and Avoid (DAA) and Command and Control (C2) systems for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) UAS Integration into the National Airspace System project initiated a focused two-year effort along with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and three industry partners to investigate remaining issues in the specification, test, certification and airspace integration to allow UAS operations in non-segregated airspace. The approach taken had the industry partners propose a flight demonstration approximating a commercial operation, while NASA helped, as needed, the partners through design and test phases and NASA observed interactions with the FAA. During this effort NASA collected best practices intended to be of value to similar UAS endeavors. These best practices can be divided into different sets, including practices that describe the relationship between business considerations to UAS design or describe several UAS development challenges. Another set includes best practices focused on navigating the UAS design and type certification processes. A third set includes best practices that relate to the design of the DAA system. Deploying DAA systems in this timeframe posed unique challenges. Commercial off-the-shelf DAA systems do not exist, necessitating custom development and, for two of the partners, the use of low-size, -weight, and -power (SWaP) sensors not completely specified for DAA. A fourth set of best practices relates to lost-link contingency planning. The final set of best practices relates to the design and testing of C2 systems and obtaining spectrum licenses. The UAS demonstrations were piloted remotely, and for all aspects of flight safety, a C2 system was required to communicate DAA and other UAS subsystem data to the remote pilot and to allow the pilot to issue commands to the vehicle. Throughout the course of this effort, the partners integrated prototype DAA and C2 systems into unmanned aircraft, tested those systems, and laid the groundwork for type certification programs that are expected to continue.

NASA↗

NASA NTRS2020

UAS Pilot Assessments of Display and Alerting for the Airborne Collision Avoidance System XU

Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) must comply with specific standards to operate in the National Airspace System (NAS). Among the requirements are the detect and avoid (DAA) capabilities, which include display, alerting, and guidance specifications. Previous studies have queried pilots for their subjective feedback on these display elements on earlier systems; the present study sought pilot evaluations with an initial iteration of the unmanned variant of a Next Generation Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS XU). Sixteen participants piloted simulated aircraft with both standalone and integrated DAA displays. Their opinions were gathered using post-block and post-simulation questionnaires as well as guided debriefs. The data showed pilots had better understanding and comfort with the system when using an integrated display. Pilots also rated ACAS Xu alerting and guidance as generally acceptable and effective. Implications for further development of ACAS XU and DAA displays are discussed.

UAS↗

NASA NTRS2013

Security Risk Assessment Process for UAS in the NAS CNPC Architecture

This informational paper discusses the risk assessment process conducted to analyze Control and Non-Payload Communications (CNPC) architectures for integrating civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS). The assessment employs the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Risk Management framework to identify threats, vulnerabilities, and risks to these architectures and recommends corresponding mitigating security controls. This process builds upon earlier work performed by RTCA Special Committee (SC) 203 and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to roadmap the risk assessment methodology and to identify categories of information security risks that pose a significant impact to aeronautical communications systems. A description of the deviations from the typical process is described in regards to this aeronautical communications system. Due to the sensitive nature of the information, data resulting from the risk assessment pertaining to threats, vulnerabilities, and risks is beyond the scope of this paper

data links↗

NASA NTRS2021

State of the Industry: UAS Sensor Review

This report is a follow on from HF Designworks’ 2018 report on state of the present and state of the art sensor technologies as they related to Ground Based Detect and Avoid (GBDAA) systems for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). In this update, HF Designworks again looks to UAS test sites, manufacturers, vendors, and users to identify the latest sensor technologies covering not just GBDAA, but additional UAS sensor types; including airborne. For this latest report, the following sensor types were reviewed, as well as a few that don’t quite fit within the following categories: Electro-Optical / Infrared (EO/IR), LiDAR, RADAR, Radiofrequency (RF) scanner, Acoustic, and Other. From our interviews and research with various organizations and individuals, we found both interesting new technologies as well as improvements to many technologies first reviewed in 2018. Compared with our 2018 findings, many of the new technologies have helped produce sensors that are smaller, lighter, require less power, and have better range and resolution than those discussed in 2018. However, challenges still exist. There is no single currently available and FAA approved sensor suite that can adequately provide complete detect and avoid capabilities to meet the needs of UAS beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) in the civilian airspace.

unmanned aircraft systems↗

NASA NTRS2016

UAS Integration in the NAS Project: Flight Test 3 Data Analysis of JADEM-Autoresolver Detect and Avoid System

The Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in the National Airspace System project, or UAS Integration in the NAS, aims to reduce technical barriers related to safety and operational challenges associated with enabling routine UAS access to the NAS. The UAS Integration in the NAS Project conducted a flight test activity, referred to as Flight Test 3 (FT3), involving several Detect-and-Avoid (DAA) research prototype systems between June 15, 2015 and August 12, 2015 at the Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC). This report documents the flight testing and analysis results for the NASA Ames-developed JADEM-Autoresolver DAA system, referred to as 'Autoresolver' herein. Four flight test days (June 17, 18, 22, and July 22) were dedicated to Autoresolver testing. The objectives of this test were as follows: 1. Validate CPA prediction accuracy and detect-and-avoid (DAA, formerly known as self-separation) alerting logic in realistic flight conditions. 2. Validate DAA trajectory model including maneuvers. 3. Evaluate TCAS/DAA interoperability. 4. Inform final Minimum Operating Performance Standards (MOPS). Flight test scenarios were designed to collect data to directly address the objectives 1-3. Objective 4, inform final MOPS, was a general objective applicable to the UAS in the NAS project as a whole, of which flight test is a subset. This report presents analysis results completed in support of the UAS in the NAS project FT3 data review conducted on October 20, 2015. Due to time constraints and, to a lesser extent, TCAS data collection issues, objective 3 was not evaluated in this analysis.

flight test↗

NASA NTRS2016

Flight Test 4 Preliminary Results: NASA Ames SSI

Realization of the expected proliferation of Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations in the National Airspace System (NAS) depends on the development and validation of performance standards for UAS Detect and Avoid (DAA) Systems. The RTCA Special Committee 228 is charged with leading the development of draft Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for UAS DAA Systems. NASA, as a participating member of RTCA SC-228 is committed to supporting the development and validation of draft requirements as well as the safety substantiation and end-to-end assessment of DAA system performance. The Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Integration into the National Airspace System (NAS) Project conducted flight test program, referred to as Flight Test 4, at Armstrong Flight Research Center from April -June 2016. Part of the test flights were dedicated to the NASA Ames-developed Detect and Avoid (DAA) System referred to as JADEM (Java Architecture for DAA Extensibility and Modeling). The encounter scenarios, which involved NASA's Ikhana UAS and a manned intruder aircraft, were designed to collect data on DAA system performance in real-world conditions and uncertainties with four different surveillance sensor systems. Flight test 4 has four objectives: (1) validate DAA requirements in stressing cases that drive MOPS requirements, including: high-speed cooperative intruder, low-speed non-cooperative intruder, high vertical closure rate encounter, and Mode CS-only intruder (i.e. without ADS-B), (2) validate TCASDAA alerting and guidance interoperability concept in the presence of realistic sensor, tracking and navigational errors and in multiple-intruder encounters against both cooperative and non-cooperative intruders, (3) validate Well Clear Recovery guidance in the presence of realistic sensor, tracking and navigational errors, and (4) validate DAA alerting and guidance requirements in the presence of realistic sensor, tracking and navigational errors. The results will be presented at RTCA Special Committee 228 in support of final verification and validation of the DAA MOPS.

Detect-And-Avoid (DAA)↗

NASA NTRS2022

Preliminary Characterization of Unmanned Air Cargo Routes Using Current Cargo Operations Survey

The introduction of regional cargo unmanned aircraft systems into the National Airspace System is anticipated within the coming years. Because they are remotely piloted, these aircraft are expected to utilize increasing aircraft automation and autonomy, require special infrastructure accommodations for navigation, communication, command and control and potentially need special treatment from air traffic control. In order to assess the accessibility and impacts of these operations across the national airspace, this preliminary study investigates current and estimated future demand for air cargo operations in the continental United States. Air cargo demand is broken down by aircraft type and airport categories to produce a rough nation-wide classification of cargo operations. Then, the state of Texas is investigated as a focus region, where the impacts of regional cargo unmanned aircraft systems on the airspace are investigated in further detail. The potential technologies that can assist in regional cargo unmanned aircraft system accessibility are defined at airports across the focus region. A single airport, Fort Worth Alliance, is highlighted to discuss airport-level statistics. Finally, a qualitative classification of airports by the type of cargo operations is suggested.

Unmanned Aircraft↗

NASA NTRS2022

Preliminary Characterization of Unmanned Air Cargo Routes Using Current Cargo Operations Survey

The introduction of regional cargo unmanned aircraft systems into the National Airspace System is anticipated within the coming years. Because they are remotely piloted, these aircraft are expected to utilize increasing aircraft automation and autonomy, require special infrastructure accommodations for navigation, communication, command and control and potentially need special treatment from air traffic control. In order to assess the accessibility and impacts of these operations across the national airspace, this preliminary study investigates current and estimated future demand for air cargo operations in the continental United States. Air cargo demand is broken down by aircraft type and airport categories to produce a rough nation-wide classification of cargo operations. Then, the state of Texas is investigated as a focus region, where the impacts of regional cargo unmanned aircraft systems on the airspace are investigated in further detail. The potential technologies that can assist in regional cargo unmanned aircraft system accessibility are defined at airports across the focus region. A single airport, Fort Worth Alliance, is highlighted to discuss airport-level statistics. Finally, a qualitative classification of airports by the type of cargo operations is suggested.

Unmanned Aircraft, Unmanned Aircraft Systems, UAS,↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Helicopter Pilot Assessments of the Airborne Collision Avoidance System XR With Automated Maneuvering

The Airborne Collision Avoidance System X (ACAS X) is a next-generation collision avoidance tool developed to support different aircraft types and operations. The rotorcraft variant – referred to as ACAS XR – is designed to accommodate existing helicopter platforms as well as in-development, electric vertical takeoff and landing concepts, which are critical to the emerging concept of operations referred to as Advanced Air Mobility. The fundamental role of ACAS XR is to provide Detect and Avoid (DAA) and/or Collision Avoidance (CA) protection against airborne traffic. DAA alerting and guidance in the context of ACAS XR is caution-level and “suggestive,” and is to be used by the pilot if, and when, they decide to maneuver against an identified threat to DAA “well clear.” The CA alerting, by contrast, is warning-level and “directive,” with the pilot required to comply with the associated guidance to prevent a predicted Near Midair Collision (NMAC). The CA alerts generated by ACAS XR are referred to as Resolution Advisories (RAs) consistent with previous CA systems. Unlike earlier CA systems, ACAS XR issues RAs in the horizontal and vertical dimensions as well as multi-axis RAs (referred to as “Blended” RAs). According to the Minimal Operational Performance Standards of DAA systems for Unmanned Aircraft Systems, maneuvers to comply with RAs may be automated, whereas maneuvers based on DAA alerting assume a manual response. The current study was a human-in-the-loop simulation that presented rotorcraft pilots with ACAS XR alerts and guidance in a fixed-base eVTOL simulator with varying levels of automation. Objective results showed that pilots complied with all RAs within the expected 5-second time window and responded to DAA alerts quicker than in earlier studies with ACAS XU. Pilots often made larger horizontal deviations during Manual RAs, but often favored vertical and blended maneuvers. No NMACs occurred, and losses of well clear were mainly attributed to the obligation of the pilots and system to maneuver only after the CA phase of the encounter had begun. Other losses were due to pilots’ noncompliance or disregard for ACAS XR’s alerting and guidance. Noncompliance with RAs most frequently occurred when pilots determined they were too close to the terrain to continue to follow Descend RAs, performing vertical maneuvers instead of following Horizontal RAs, or rejecting Horizontal RA updates because they felt that enough maneuvering had been performed. Subjectively, pilots found the DAA and RA alerting and guidance intuitive and useful for VFR helicopter operations. Slightly more pilots preferred the Automated RA condition to the Manual RA condition. Lastly, they also felt that ACAS led to occasional unsafe Descend RAs. Caveats and future implications are discussed.

eVTOL↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Helicopter Pilot Assessments of the Airborne Collision Avoidance System XR With Automated Maneuvering

The Airborne Collision Avoidance System X (ACAS X) is a next-generation collision avoidance tool developed to support different aircraft types and operations. The rotorcraft variant – referred to as ACAS XR – is designed to accommodate existing helicopter platforms as well as in-development, electric vertical takeoff and landing concepts, which are critical to the emerging concept of operations referred to as Advanced Air Mobility. The fundamental role of ACAS XR is to provide Detect and Avoid (DAA) and/or Collision Avoidance (CA) protection against airborne traffic. DAA alerting and guidance in the context of ACAS XR is caution-level and “suggestive,” and is to be used by the pilot if, and when, they decide to maneuver against an identified threat to DAA “well clear.” The CA alerting, by contrast, is warning-level and “directive,” with the pilot required to comply with the associated guidance to prevent a predicted Near Midair Collision (NMAC). The CA alerts generated by ACAS XR are referred to as Resolution Advisories (RAs) consistent with previous CA systems. Unlike earlier CA systems, ACAS XR issues RAs in the horizontal and vertical dimensions as well as multi-axis RAs (referred to as “Blended” RAs). According to the Minimal Operational Performance Standards of DAA systems for Unmanned Aircraft Systems, maneuvers to comply with RAs may be automated, whereas maneuvers based on DAA alerting assume a manual response. The current study was a human-in-the-loop simulation that presented rotorcraft pilots with ACAS XR alerts and guidance in a fixed-base eVTOL simulator with varying levels of automation. Objective results showed that pilots complied with all RAs within the expected 5-second time window and responded to DAA alerts quicker than in earlier studies with ACAS XU. Pilots often made larger horizontal deviations during Manual RAs, but often favored vertical and blended maneuvers. No NMACs occurred, and losses of well clear were mainly attributed to the obligation of the pilots and system to maneuver only after the CA phase of the encounter had begun. Other losses were due to pilots’ noncompliance or disregard for ACAS XR’s alerting and guidance. Noncompliance with RAs most frequently occurred when pilots determined they were too close to the terrain to continue to follow Descend RAs, performing vertical maneuvers instead of following Horizontal RAs, or rejecting Horizontal RA updates because they felt that enough maneuvering had been performed. Subjectively, pilots found the DAA and RA alerting and guidance intuitive and useful for VFR helicopter operations. Slightly more pilots preferred the Automated RA condition to the Manual RA condition. Lastly, they also felt that ACAS led to occasional unsafe Descend RAs. Caveats and future implications are discussed.

eVTOL↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Advanced Air Mobility Operations & Automation Part II Technical Lecture

The Airborne Collision Avoidance System X (ACAS X) is a next-generation collision avoidance tool developed to support different aircraft types and operations. The rotorcraft variant – referred to as ACAS XR – is designed to accommodate existing helicopter platforms as well as in-development, electric vertical takeoff and landing concepts, which are critical to the emerging concept of operations referred to as Advanced Air Mobility. The fundamental role of ACAS XR is to provide Detect and Avoid (DAA) and/or Collision Avoidance (CA) protection against airborne traffic. DAA alerting and guidance in the context of ACAS XR is caution-level and “suggestive,” and is to be used by the pilot if, and when, they decide to maneuver against an identified threat to DAA “well clear.” The CA alerting, by contrast, is warning-level and “directive,” with the pilot required to comply with the associated guidance to prevent a predicted Near Midair Collision (NMAC). The CA alerts generated by ACAS XR are referred to as Resolution Advisories (RAs) consistent with previous CA systems. Unlike earlier CA systems, ACAS XR issues RAs in the horizontal and vertical dimensions as well as multi-axis RAs (referred to as “Blended” RAs). According to the Minimal Operational Performance Standards of DAA systems for Unmanned Aircraft Systems, maneuvers to comply with RAs may be automated, whereas maneuvers based on DAA alerting assume a manual response. The current presentation discusses two human-in-the-loop simulations that presented rotorcraft pilots with ACAS XR alerts and guidance in eVTOL simulators with varying levels of automation. It also presents overviews of these studies as well as how they assisted live flight tests, which will occur throughout 2023.

air taxis↗

NASA NTRS2016

A Cognitive Systems Engineering Approach to Developing HMI Requirements for New Technologies

This document examines the challenges inherent in designing and regulating to support human-automation interaction for new technologies that will deployed into complex systems. A key question for new technologies, is how work will be accomplished by the human and machine agents. This question has traditionally been framed as how functions should be allocated between humans and machines. Such framing misses the coordination and synchronization that is needed for the different human and machine roles in the system to accomplish their goals. Coordination and synchronization demands are driven by the underlying human-automation architecture of the new technology, which are typically not specified explicitly by the designers. The human machine interface (HMI) which is intended to facilitate human-machine interaction and cooperation, however, typically is defined explicitly and therefore serves as a proxy for human-automation cooperation requirements with respect to technical standards for technologies. Unfortunately, mismatches between the HMI and the coordination and synchronization demands of the underlying human-automation architecture, can lead to system breakdowns. A methodology is needed that both designers and regulators can utilize to evaluate the expected performance of a new technology given potential human-automation architectures. Three experiments were conducted to inform the minimum HMI requirements a detect and avoid system for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). The results of the experiments provided empirical input to specific minimum operational performance standards that UAS manufacturers will have to meet in order to operate UAS in the National Airspace System (NAS). These studies represent a success story for how to objectively and systematically evaluate prototype technologies as part of the process for developing regulatory requirements. They also provide an opportunity to reflect on the lessons learned from a recent research effort in order to improve the methodology for defining technology requirements for regulators in the future. The biggest shortcoming of the presented research program was the absence of the explicit definition, generation and analysis of potential human-automation architectures. Failure to execute this step in the research process resulted in less efficient evaluation of the candidate prototypes technologies in addition to the complete absence of different approaches to human-automation cooperation. For example, all of the prototype technologies that were evaluated in the research program assumed a human-automation architecture that relied on serial processing from the automation to the human. While this type of human-automation architecture is typical across many different technologies and in many different domains, it ignores different architectures where humans and automation work in parallel. Defining potential human-automation architectures a priori also allows regulators to develop scenarios that will stress the performance boundaries of the technology during the evaluation phase. The importance of adding this step of generating and evaluating candidate human-automation architectures prior to formal empirical evaluation is discussed.

human systems integration↗

NASA NTRS2017

UAS Well Clear Recovery Against Non-Cooperative Intruders Using Vertical Maneuvers

This paper documents a study that drove the development of a mathematical expression in the minimum operational performance standards (MOPS) of detect-and-avoid (DAA) systems for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). This equation describes the conditions under which vertical maneuver guidance could be provided during recovery of well clear separation with a non-cooperative VFR aircraft in addition to horizontal maneuver guidance. Although suppressing vertical maneuver guidance in these situations increased the minimum horizontal separation from 500 to 800 feet, the maximum severity of loss of well clear increased in about 35 of the encounters compared to when a vertical maneuver was preferred and allowed. Additionally, analysis of individual cases led to the identification of a class of encounter where vertical rate error had a large effect on horizontal maneuvers due to the difficulty of making the correct left-right turn decision: crossing conflict with intruder changing altitude. These results supported allowing vertical maneuvers when UAS vertical performance exceeds the relative vertical position and velocity accuracy of the DAA tracker given the current velocity of the UAS and the relative vertical position and velocity estimated by the DAA tracker. Looking ahead, these results indicate a need to improve guidance algorithms by utilizing maneuver stability and near mid-air collision risk when determining maneuver guidance to regain well clear separation.

detect and avoid↗

NASA NTRS2017

Map Projection Induced Variations in Locations of Polygon Geofence Edges

This Paper under-estimates answers to the following question under various constraints: If a geofencing algorithm uses a map projection to determine whether a position is inside/outside a polygon region, how far outside/inside the polygon can the point be and the algorithm determine that it is inside/outside (the opposite and therefore incorrect answer)? Geofencing systems for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) often model stay-in and stay-out regions using 2D polygons with minimum and maximum altitudes. The vertices of the polygons are typically input as latitude-longitude pairs, and the edges as paths between adjacent vertices. There are numerous ways to generate these paths, resulting in numerous potential locations for the edges of stay-in and stay-out regions. These paths may be geodesics on a spherical model of the earth or geodesics on the WGS84 reference ellipsoid. In geofencing applications that use map projections, these paths are inverse images of straight lines in the projected plane. This projected plane may be a projection of a spherical earth model onto a tangent plane, called an orthographic projection. Alternatively, it may be a projection where the straight lines in the projected plane correspond to straight lines in the latitudelongitude coordinate system, also called a Plate Carr´ee projection. This paper estimates distances between different edge paths and an oracle path, which is a geodesic on either the spherical earth or the WGS84 ellipsoidal earth. This paper therefore estimates how far apart different edge paths can be rather than comparing their path lengths, which are not considered. Rather, the comparision is between the actual locations of the edges between vertices. For edges drawn using orthographic projections, this maximum distance increases as the distance from the polygon vertices to the projection point increases. For edges drawn using Plate Carr´ee projections, this maximum distance increases as the vertices become further from the equator. Distances between geodesics on a spherical earth and a WGS84 ellipsoidal earth are also analyzed, using the WGS84 ellipsoid as the oracle. Bounds on the 2D distance between a straight line and a great circle path, in an orthographically projected plane rather than on the surface of the earth, have been formally verified in the PVS theorem prover, meaning that they are mathematically correct in the absence of floating point errors.

Neeley, Paula↗

NASA NTRS2017

Modelling the Risks Remotely Piloted Aircraft Pose to People on the Ground

Worldwide there is much e ort being directed towards the development of a framework of air- worthiness regulations for remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS). It is now broadly accepted that regulations should have a strong foundation in, and traceability to, the management of the safety risks. Existing risk models for RPAS operations do not provide a simple means for incorporating the wide range of technical and operational controls into the risk analysis and evaluation processes. This paper describes a new approach for modelling and evaluating the risks associated with RPAS operations near populous areas based on the barrier bow tie (BBT) model. A BBT model is used to structure the underlying risk management problem. The model focuses risk analysis, evaluation, and decision making activities on the devices, people, and processes that can be employed to reduce risk. The BBT model and a comprehensive set of example risk controls are presented. The general model can be applied to any RPAS operation. The foundations for quantitative and qualitative assessments using a BBT model are also presented. The modelling and evaluation framework is illustrated through its application to a case-study rotary wing RPAS for two operational scenarios. The model can be used as a basis for determining airworthiness certification requirements for RPAS.

Barrier bow tie model↗