The Experts below are selected from a list of 81 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

W. Hoadley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • T)EVELOPMENT OF A UNIVERSITY ENGINEERING FLIGHT TEST AIRCRAFT FAA LICENSED UNDER NORMAL CATEGORY Arthur
    2004
    Co-Authors: W. Hoadley
    Abstract:

    Providing Engineering students with laboratory experiences is vital to their education and development as Engineers. One of the most dlfflcult and expensive laboratories to maintain is the flight test facility. One of many problems is the operation under the FAA's experimental Airworthiness Certificate for extended periods of time. In addition, most University insurance people dislike the term "experimental" regardless of the types of flight testing being conducted. Western Michigan University has initiated a flight test facility whlch includes a flight test Cessna 182RG. This airplane is presently equipped, or is in the process of being equipped, with a 120vac auxiliary power unit (APU), air data boom, instrumentation racks, computer, signal conditioning, accelerometers, pressure, and engine instrumentation. The equipment added will be installed under one time individual supplemental type Certificates CSTC), thus allowing the aircraft to remain under a normal Airworthiness Certificate. The paper describes each system and elaborates on the certlflcation requirements. Also discussed are the engineering experiences encountered in the development and those anticipated in

Nasa - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • British Certificates of Airworthiness
    2019
    Co-Authors: Nasa
    Abstract:

    This report details the rules and regulations for obtaining a British Airworthiness Certificate. Aircraft loading and construction are especially important.

  • Initial Experimental Airworthiness Certification Guidance for UAS. UAS Experimental Certification Process and Guidance
    2013
    Co-Authors: Nasa
    Abstract:

    This paper addresses the regulatory processes and requirements already in place by which an applicant might obtain experimental Airworthiness certification for a civil Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS). It is more extensive and subsequent to an earlier, similar deliverable, PD007, which was an interim study of the same topic. Since few regulatory Airworthiness and operating standards exist for UAS like those for traditional manned aircraft and since most UAS have historically been developed and operated under military auspices, civil use of UAS in the NAS is a new and unfamiliar challenge requiring specific and unique considerations. Experimental certification is the most basic level of FAA approval toward routine UAS operation in the NAS. The paper reviews and explains existing FAA requirements for an applicant seeking experimental Airworthiness approval and details the process for submission of necessary information. It summarizes the limited purposes for which experimental aircraft may be used and addresses pertinent aspects of UAS design, construction and operation in the NAS in harmony with traditional manned aircraft. Policy IPT position is that UAS, while different from manned aircraft, can use the same initial processes to gain civil operating experience under the experimental approval. Particular note is taken of those UAS-unique characteristics which require extra attention to assure equivalent safety of operation, such as the UAS control station and sense-and-avoid. The paper also provides "best practices" guidance for UAS manufacturers and FAA personnel in two appendices. The material in Appendix A is intended to provide guidance on assuring UAS safety to FAA, and provides FAA personnel with a suggested list of items to review, with a focus on UAS unique factors, prior to issuance of an experimental Airworthiness Certificate. Appendix B provides an outline for a program letter which a manufacturer could use in preparing the application for an UAS experimental Airworthiness Certificate.

Larry A. Meyn - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • probabilistic safety assessment of unmanned aerial system operations
    Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics, 2013
    Co-Authors: Larry A. Meyn
    Abstract:

    U NMANNED aircraft systems (UASs) are becoming increasingly popular, encompassing awide variety ofmissions ranging from military reconnaissance to wildfire monitoring. However, there are inherent safety concerns with UAS due to the lack of an onboard human pilot. Currently, to operate UAS in the National Airspace System, the operators must obtain either a Certificate of Authorization or Waiver or a special Airworthiness Certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) [1]. One of the important steps in obtaining the approval is a proof that the UAS operation can be conducted at an acceptable level of safety [1]. Many past studies assessing the safety of UAS operations used uniform traffic densities. Anno [2] investigated midair collision risk using a random collision theory and compared the results with historic collision data from 1969 to 1978. McGeer et al. [3,4] performed hazard estimation studies of the Aerosonde UAS. In these studies, two different constant densities were used for the UAS and the background traffic. A comprehensive system-wide study performed byWeibel and Hansman [5] used a ratio of the volume swept by the background aircraft to the total airspace volume. Lum and Waggoner [6] conducted a study on both midair collision and ground impact based on the collision model of gas molecules. These approaches are adequate for obtaining a general idea of the risk around a given region but do not consider traffic patterns that are specific to the region of interest. Lum et al. [7] used actual UAS trajectories for a ground impact analysis. In this study, a realistic distribution of average glide angle was used to calculate the expected value of ground fatalities. Sheridan [8] proposed a model to estimate the relative collision probability between two aircraft at the closest point of approach based on Gaussian density functions. Maki et al. [9] created a method to efficiently estimate the probability of near midair collision using Gaussian probability distributions of proposed UAS trajectories and historic track data. In thiswork, the nearmidair collision probabilities are expressed as confidence intervals. Some of the work is related to quantitatively establishing the boundary of “well clear” for sense-and-avoid systems. Weibel et al. [10] used conditional probability to develop a separation standard model based on uncorrelated encounter model [11]. Asmat et al. [12] developed a UAS-specific collision-avoidance system that can communicate with the existing traffic alert collision and avoidance system. In this work, a distributed traffic model similar to Maki et al. [9] is constructed using actual traffic data collected over a one-year period to enable a probabilistic approach to risk assessment. The radar data provided by the U.S. Air Force contains not only the cooperative traffic data but also the noncooperative traffic data with altitude information. Inclusion of noncooperative traffic, mostly general aviation (GA) traffic, is important because they tend to fly at lower altitudes where the UAS are likely to operate, and it is harder to implement collision mitigation measures with them. The current study computes the collision rates, which are defined by the number of collisions per unit time of UAS operation, based on UAS tracks flying through the continuous background traffic model. The procedures and results are explained in detail throughout the following sections. Following the introduction, the area around the Grand Forks Air Force Base where the U.S. Air Force is planning to operate UAS is described in Sec. II. Then, the description of the continuous-traffic model is presented in Sec. III. In Sec. IV, mathematical formulations for the continuous-traffic model and for the computation of conflict and collision probabilities are presented. Section V reviews the air traffic characteristics of the given area in terms of average aircraft counts and their spatial distributions, and Sec. VI presents the collision risk computed for a potential mission scenario. Finally, the results and recommendations are summarized in Sec. VII.

  • Engineering Notes Probabilistic Safety Assessment of Unmanned Aerial System Operations
    2013
    Co-Authors: Hak-tae Lee, Larry A. Meyn, Soyoung Kim
    Abstract:

    NMANNED aircraft systems (UASs) are becoming increas-inglypopular,encompassingawidevarietyofmissionsrangingfrommilitaryreconnaissancetowildfiremonitoring.However,thereareinherentsafety concernswithUASduetothelackof anonboardhuman pilot. Currently, to operate UAS in the National AirspaceSystem, the operators must obtain either a Certificate of Authoriza-tion or Waiver or a special Airworthiness Certificate from the FederalAviation Administration (FAA) [1]. One of the important steps inobtaining the approval is a proof that the UAS operation can beconducted at an acceptable level of safety [1].Many past studies assessing the safety of UAS operations useduniform traffic densities. Anno [2] investigated midair collision riskusing a random collision theory and compared the results withhistoric collision data from 1969 to 1978. McGeer et al. [3,4]performedhazardestimationstudiesoftheAerosondeUAS.Inthesestudies, two different constant densities were used for the UAS andthe background traffic. A comprehensive system-wide study per-formedbyWeibelandHansman[5]usedaratioofthevolumesweptby the background aircraft to the total airspace volume. Lum andWaggoner[6]conductedastudyonbothmidaircollisionandgroundimpact based on the collision model of gas molecules. Theseapproaches are adequate for obtaining a general idea of the riskaround a given region but do not consider traffic patterns that arespecific to the region of interest.Lum et al. [7] used actual UAS trajectories for a ground impactanalysis. In this study, a realistic distribution of average glide anglewasusedtocalculatetheexpectedvalueofgroundfatalities.Sheridan[8] proposed a model to estimate the relative collision probabilitybetween two aircraft at the closest point of approach based onGaussian density functions. Maki et al. [9] created a method toefficiently estimate the probability of near midair collision usingGaussian probability distributions of proposed UAS trajectories andhistorictrackdata.Inthiswork,thenearmidaircollisionprobabilitiesare expressed as confidence intervals.Some of the work is related to quantitatively establishing theboundary of “well clear” for sense-and-avoid systems. Weibel et al.[10] used conditional probability to develop a separation standardmodelbasedonuncorrelatedencountermodel[11].Asmatetal.[12]developed a UAS-specific collision-avoidance system that cancommunicate with the existing traffic alert collision and avoidancesystem.Inthiswork,adistributedtrafficmodelsimilartoMakietal.[9]isconstructedusingactualtrafficdatacollectedoveraone-yearperiodto enable a probabilistic approach to risk assessment. The radar dataprovided by the U.S. Air Force contains not only the cooperativetraffic data but also the noncooperative traffic data with altitudeinformation. Inclusion of noncooperative traffic, mostly generalaviation (GA) traffic, is important because they tend to fly at loweraltitudes where the UAS are likely to operate, and it is harder toimplement collision mitigation measures with them. The currentstudy computes the collision rates, which are defined by the numberof collisions per unit time of UAS operation, based on UAS tracksflying through the continuous background traffic model. Theprocedures and results are explained in detail throughout thefollowing sections.Following the introduction, the area around the Grand Forks AirForce Base where the U.S. Air Force is planning to operate UAS isdescribed in Sec. II. Then, the description of the continuous-trafficmodelispresentedinSec.III.InSec.IV,mathematicalformulationsfor the continuous-traffic model and for the computation of conflictand collision probabilities are presented. Section V reviews the airtraffic characteristics of the given area in terms of average aircraftcounts and their spatial distributions, and Sec. VI presents thecollision risk computed for a potential mission scenario. Finally, theresults and recommendations are summarized in Sec. VII.

Comac Commercial - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Edward J. Delehant - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Safety & Design Considerations for the Cooperative Avionics Test Bed (CATBird) Aircraft
    SAE transactions, 2005
    Co-Authors: Edward J. Delehant
    Abstract:

    Lockheed Martin Aeronautics is currently in the process of modifying a 737-300 aircraft from the standard airline configuration to an avionics test bed aircraft for use in developing the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35 avionics suite. As simple of a concept as this implies, it is actually a complex design evolution as there are no recognized "standards" for test bed aircraft. The design evolution attempts to provide a recognized level of safety to an aircraft flown under an experimental Airworthiness Certificate. A test bed that most closely replicates the test article will be more productive. And, a test bed capable of testing all the desired systems both on an individual basis and as an integrated system will pay large returns to the test program.