Operational Risk Management of the SCAN EAGLE
UAS
According to Google, ORM or Operational Risk Management
is defined as “continued cyclic process that incorporates risk assessment, risk
decision making, and also the implementation of risk controls. This results in mitigation, acceptance and/or
risk avoidance” (Google, n.d.). The
military defines ORM as “the process of dealing with risk associated with
military operations. This includes risk
assessment, risk decision making, and implementation of effective risk
controls” (Fort Sill Marine Corps Artillery Detachment, 2008).
Terms that are often related to Operational Risk
Management (Fort Sill Marine Corps Artillery
Detachment, 2008):
·
Risk
– The loss of something relative to severity and probability
·
Severity
– What is the worst plausible consequence when dealing with a hazard?
·
Hazard
– Situation in which the likelihood of bodily injury, death, mission
degradation or damage could occur.
·
Probability
– How likely will the hazard result in loss or accident?
·
Control
– The way one would reduce or decrease the likelihood of occurrence, and/or
severity.
·
Risk
Assessment – the process of assessing the risks associated with a known or
unknown hazard.
The research assignment’s focus is to
delve into the Operational Risk Management of the Scan Eagle System. The ScanEagle is an
autonomous unmanned aerial vehicle designed to be agile, undetectable, and
persistent (Boeing's ScanEagle, 2006). This
system is a low cost aerial system capable of providing multiple facets of
surveillance, and environmental monitoring by way of myriad of sensor
suites. Scan Eagle is capable of
providing ISR for locating high-value targets, acting as a forward observer,
weather monitoring, chemical and biological weapons detection through air
analysis, border patrols of real-time images, or it can be used for wireless
communications relay and targeting of ships at sea (McGarry, 2003). Other missions range from aiding weather
forecasting, providing imagery for geomagnetic and atmospheric surveys, resource
mapping, search and rescue operations or Battle Damage Assessment (Becket,
2007).
Scan Eagle’s Specifications are shown
in the table below:
Table 1.0 General Characteristics of
Scan Eagle UAV
Preliminary
Hazard List/Analysis
The card above will be used to evaluate potential hazards
that have the ability to make the flight and operation of ScanEagle an unsafe
operation. The PHL/A is designed for
ease of tracking by establishing a track number per hazard entry. This
information can be used to create a history of hazardous items encountered and
stored in a database for safety trending and analysis. The associated hazards are listed on the
check list above such as environments such as - Maritime/Jungle/Desert/Mountains/Tundra. The PHL/A also provides the chance to capture
the hazard’s probability and severity of the hazard per MIL-STD-882D/E. Assessing the risk level is very important
and can be captured as a numerical value as perscribed by the System Safety
Specification - MIL-STD-882D/E.
The Analysis portion of the Preliminary Hazard
List/Analysis card is used to assess the initial risks, and identify mitigation
actions available for the identified hazards.
The residual risk level - RRL
provides an assessmen of the identified
event, item, danger after the mitigation is in place. This action will give greater visibility of
the hazard which would aid in training.
Knowing the likelihood of the hazard will occur regardless of mitigating
actions is very important allowing the operators to adjust actions and
reactions accordingly during ScanEagle operations.
Operation Hazard List/Analysis
The OHL/A is used during ScanEagle’s flight (Barnhart,
Hottman, Marshall, & Shappee, 2011).
This data offers further ability for safety of operations research and
record keep for ScanEagle. System
improvements and inovative thinking come from historical data gather by
operator and crew associated with the ScanEagle UAS. The OHL/A can drive UAS design improvements
for new variants.
ScanEagle Risk Assessment
|
ScanEagle Risk Assessment
|
|||||
|
Date:
|
Aircraft: ScanEagle
|
Serial #:
|
|||
|
UAS Crew/Station:
|
_______________/____________
_______________/____________
|
||||
|
_______________/____________
_______________/____________
|
|||||
|
Mission Type
|
SUPPORT
|
TRAINING
|
PAYLOAD CHECK
|
EXPERIMENTAL
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
||
|
Hardware Changes
|
NO
|
YES
|
|||
|
1
|
4
|
||||
|
Software
Changes/Calibration
|
NO
|
YES
|
|||
|
1
|
4
|
||||
|
Airspace of Operation
|
WIDE OPEN
|
MINIMAL HAZ
|
MODERATE HAZ
|
ABUNDANT HAZ
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
||
|
Operator Experience
with this Aircraft
|
EXPERT
|
ADVANCED
|
INTERMEDIATE
|
NOVICE
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
||
|
Flight Time
|
DAY
|
NIGHT
|
|||
|
1
|
4
|
||||
|
Type of Flight
|
LOS
|
LOS/BLOS
|
BLOS
|
FPV
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
||
|
Visibility
|
> 10 MILES
|
6-9 MILES
|
2-5 MILES
|
< 2 MILES
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
||
|
Surface Winds
|
0-5 KTS
|
5-15 KTS
|
> 15 KTS
|
||
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|||
|
Forecast Winds
|
0-5 KTS
|
5-15 KTS
|
> 15 KTS
|
||
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|||
|
Weather Deteriorating
|
NO
|
YES
|
|||
|
1
|
4
|
||||
|
Other Airspace
Activity
|
NO
|
YES
|
|||
|
1
|
4
|
||||
|
Established Lost Link
Procedures
|
YES
|
NO
|
|||
|
1
|
NO FLIGHT
|
||||
|
GPS Satellites
Acquired
|
ALL 3
|
2
|
1
|
NONE
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
||
|
Proper
"home" Location Set
|
YES
|
NO
|
|||
|
1
|
4
|
||||
|
Potential For Tx/Rx
Interference
|
NONE
|
SOME
|
MODERATE
|
SEVERE
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
NO FLIGHT
|
NO FLIGHT
|
||
|
Total
|
|||||
|
RISK LEVEL
|
|||||
|
18-27
|
28-36
|
37-45
|
45-56
|
||
|
LOW
|
MEDIUM
|
SERIOUS
|
HIGH
|
||
|
Aircraft Number: __________________
Aircraft Type: _______________________
|
|||||
|
Flight Released By: _____________________________
Date: ____________ Time: ____________
|
|||||
The above Risk Assessment
is also a part of the overall Operational Risk Management necessary to maintain
the safe operation of the ScanEagle UAS.
The form above rates the level of risk to ScanEagle operations by attaching
numerical representation. Those
numerical identifications relay the level of safety, the low the number the
greater the safety of flight operations.
The Matrix above also represents how DoD agencies color code risk to
convey their level of importance.
References
Barnhart,
R., Hottman, S., Marshall, D., & Shappee, E. (2011). Introduction to
Unmanned Aircraft Systems. London: CRC Press.
Boeing's
ScanEagle. (2006). Wings of Gold, 31, 13-15. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/199487728?accountid= 27203
McGarry, T. (2003). Spy
in the Sky, Stanford Alumni. Retrieved February 25, 2015, from https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=37560
No comments:
Post a Comment