1. Collision Avoidance AIAA Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Systems, Technology, and Operations Conference Sense, Detect and Avoid Workshop

2. IntroductionJohn Price Collision Avoidance – US Civil AirspaceJohn Price Lessons Learned Challenges for Different Classes of Airspace Collision Avoidance – Restricted AirspaceBruce Clough Collision Avoidance – European PerspectiveDick Wagaman Session Outline

3. Advisory Circular AC 90-48C (Pilots’ Role in Collision Avoidance), FAA, U.S. Dept. of Transportation FAA-P-8740-51 FAA Accident Prevention program FAA Aviation Safety Data Aviation Safety Network NTSB Aviation Safety Data – NMACS Database FAA Data References

4. A Total of 152 Midair Collisions (MAC) Occurred in the United States From 1978 Through October 1982 Resulting in 377 Fatalities. The Yearly Statistics Remained Fairly Constant Throughout This Approximately 5 Years. During This Same Time Period There Were 2,241 Reported Near Midair Collisions (NMAC). Statistics Indicate That the Majority of These Midair Collisions and Near Midair Collisions Occurred in Good Weather and During the Hours of Daylight. FAA Has Since Introduced Several Programs With a Greater Emphasis on the Need for Recognition of the Human Factors Associated With Midair Conflicts. FAA MAC Statistics – 1978 to 1982

5. FAA NMAC Statistics – 1987 to 1996 * Critical: Less than 100 feet aircraft separation ** Potential: Less than 500 feet aircraft separation Measures Taken by FAA And Airline Industry Show Steady Improvements

6. GA Is the Biggest Culprit, but All Aircraft Types Had Been Involved Including A/C to A/C (Ranked #5) 3 4 5 1 2 6 7 Comparison of NMAC by Operator Type Operator Type199419951996199719981999 A/C – A/C282320171517 A/C – G/A4743354944 A/C – Military11138201211 A/C – Other753625 A/C – Unk/NR492822352531 G/A – G/A403937333142 G/A – Mil202821231017 G/A – Other775033 G/A – Unk/NR312427342932 Mil – Military8713512 Mil – Other101101 Mil – Unk/NR22171482825 Oth – Other010002 Oth – Unk/NR430434 Unk – Unk000516 Totals275238194238208252

7. Comparison of NMAC by Flight Plan Neither Flight Plan Is Free From NMAC. However, IFR/VFR Has the Highest Incident Rates While IFR/IFR Has the Lowest Rates.

8. Similar Trends As USA: GA Has the Highest Incident Rates More Occurrence Under VMC (VFR) than IMC (IFR) Most Frequently Occurred Under 3,000 Feet Surrounding Airports Some Data on Dutch Air Traffic Incidents 19911992199319941995 Reported Near Misses1824283625 Classification Risk of Collision36565 Safety Not Assured109162413 No Risk of Collision57547 Risk Not Determined01220 Type of Aircraft General Aviation1623 2225 Airlines1011253219 Military11 9159 Flight Conditions VMC1523212719 IMC31796 Altitude Ground-3000 ft1222202218 3001 ft – FL5521315 FL55 – FL195103102 FL195-FL24520310 FL245+10030

9. Nearly All Midair Collisions Occur During Daylight Hours and in VFR Conditions. Majority of These Happen Within Five Miles of an Airport, in the Areas of Greatest Traffic Concentration Statistics on 105 In-flight Collisions Show That: –82% Were at Overtaking –5% Were From a Head-on Angle –77% Occurred at or Below 3,000 feet And 49% at or Below 500 feet Increasing Traffic and Higher Closing Speeds Pose Increased Potential of Midair Collisions. It Takes a Minimum of 10 seconds, Says the FAA, For a Pilot to Spot Traffic, Identify It, Realize It's a Collision Threat, React, and Have His Aircraft Respond. The Reason Most Often Noted in the Statistics Reads: "Failure of Pilot to See Other Aircraft." In Most Cases at Least One of the Pilots Involved Could Have Seen the Other in Time to Avoid Contact, If He Had Used His Eyes Properly. Lessons Learned

10. Jet Safety.com - F-16 Crash Site Jet Safety.com - USN, USMC, USA data Military Data References

11. Military Aircraft Accident (F-16, FY2001) DateType F-16BaseCause 26 July 2001F-16CTerra Haute Air Guard, IndianaUnder Inv. 23 July 2001F-16CLuke AFB, AZUnder Inv. 18 July 2001F-16CDeployed to Turkey, 510 FSUnder Inv. 17 July 2001F-16BEdwards AFB, CA, 416 FSUnder Inv. 6 July 2001F-16CJShaw AFB, SC, 77 th FSUnder Inv. 12 Jun 2001F-16CKunsan AB, ROK, 35 th FSNight Training – NVG 3 Apr 2001F-16CJMisawa AB, Japan, 13 th FSEngine Failure 21 Mar 2001F-16UnknownEngine Failure 13 Dec 2000F-16CCannon AFB, NMEngine Failure 16 Nov 2000F-16Moody AFB, GA, 69 th FSMid-air w/ Cessna 172 13 Nov 2000F-16Misawa, JapanMid-air w/ F-16 During G- awareness Turn 13 Nov 2000F-16Misawa, JapanMid-air w/ F-16 12 Oct 2000F-16Tulsa Air GuardEngine Failure

12. Most Military Aircraft Midair Collisions Occur During Training. Close Proximity and Aggressive Maneuvers Create Special Challenges As Relative Geometry/velocity Can Be Such That One Would Fail to See or Maintain Safe Distance From the Others. Exercises That Involve Red and Blue Forces Can Further Create Chaos, Thus Increasing the Risk of MAC. Lessons Learned

13. UAV Population Vs Airspace Class 8% of UAVs Class G 64% of UAVs Class E 28 % of UAVs Class A

14. UAVs in Class A Airspace Situation: – Normally a Highly Structured Environment – Undergoing Change – GATM – Technology Challenge – SWAP and Cost – Domain of Larger more Expensive UAVs Sensors/Equipment: – Mode S Extended – ADS-B – TCAS II ? – Dual GPS/INS – Redundant Airdata/Altimeters

15. UAVs in Class A Airspace Issues: – “Sense and Avoid” vs “Broadcast your Position and let Other Avoid You” – May help UAVs, but does it add other restrictions – “Man in the Loop” vs “Autonomous Operations” – Finding Appropriate Space of the UAV for Equipment – Cost

16. UAVs in Class E Airspace Situation: – Not Well Structured Environment – Largely Domain of General Aviation – Technology Challenge – Performance, SWAP, Cost – Generally Occupied by Smaller, Less Expensive UAVs Sensors/Equipments: – EO/IR – Radar – Ladar

17. UAVs in Class E Airspace Issues: – “…comparable see-and-avoid requirements for manned A/C” – What is the detection range and reliability of the human pilot in various weather and lighting conditions? – What is his field of regard? – What is his reaction time – Should we strive to exceed manned performance – “Man in the Loop” vs “Autonomous Operations” – Finding appropriate on the UAV for Sensors – Cost

18. Summary Data and lessons learned indicate that our biggest challenge will be UAV integration with General Aviation aircraft The old question of “man in the loop” vs “autonomous operations” plays across all classes of airspace Technology has provided us solutions, but can we fit them in the UAV and still retain a reasonable payload volume? Can we afford them?

19. Backup Slides

20. OPEC Model Results for F-16 This quantifies “…same range…”

21. AFRL/SN OPEC Model Models human detection –Backgrounds –Lighting –Sunshine –Earthshine –Skyshine –Aircraft models –10,000 facets –Dynamics –Atmospheric transmission Validated –937 human trials –Model calibrated using trials Line-of-sight Human Observer

22. Predator Analysis Results