Air Traffic Control Association
No. 10, 2016
www.atca.org
NASA’s Build-a-Little, Test-a-Little Approach to UAS Traffic Management
IN THIS ISSUE: »» A Look Back at #ATCA61 »» ADS-B In Train »» Aviation History Corner
PRESIDENT’S MESSAG E
No. 10, 2016 Published for
By Peter F. Dumont, President & CEO, Air Traffic Control Association
Let’s Take a Moment to Focus on the Forest and Ignore the Trees
I
s it just ATCA or is autumn the busiest time of year for everyone? We just held our 61st ATCA Annual, which also happened to be my 10th as ATCA’s President and CEO. This year’s event was packed with three days of panels, 102 exhibitors, and about 3,000 attendees. It also included a special meeting on the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Surveillance Strategy and the Glen A. Gilbert Memorial Award Banquet, with NATCA President Paul Rinaldi as this year’s very deserving recipient. And that’s just scratching the surface of what our event offered this year. Pulling off a conference of that size with a lean and mean staff of 11 is an accomplishment, to say the least. But this year, we are wasting no time and immediately turning our attention to the UTM Convention 2016 taking place November 8-10 in Syracuse, N.Y. While it’s all too easy to get caught up in the gritty details of hosting a conference and exposition, I think it’s important to really think about the bigger picture and amazing discussions and connections we made
during ATCA Annual. I am so pleased with the caliber of our members’ participation in the selection of the panel topics and panel participants. Paul Planzer, ATCA’s program manager, along with Pat Forrey of SAIC and Paul Fontaine of FAA worked with a team of volunteers to identify topics and invite speakers. After listening to the panels and topics, I think they fell into three overarching themes: • Never stop improving. • Keep on top of trends as they emerge. • Give stakeholders an arena. To address the theme of “never stop improving,” we had panels discuss the enterprise architecture and its budget, performance based oversight, and the acquisition strategy. In these panels, I heard discussions about our budget restrictions being both frustrating and a reality. According to the panel, dealing with limited funding will force decision makers into an aggressive priority setting. Panelists discussed the priorities set by the NextGen Advisory
1101 King Street, Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: 703-299-2430 Fax: 703-299-2437 info@atca.org www.atca.org President & CEO: Peter F. Dumont Director, Communications: Abigail Glenn-Chase Writer/Editor: Kristen Knott
Formed in 1956 as a non-profit, professional membership association, ATCA represents the interests of all professionals in the air traffic control industry. Dedicated to the advancement of professionalism and technology of air traffic control, ATCA has grown to represent several thousand individuals and organizations managing and providing ATC services and equipment around the world. Published by
140 Broadway, 46th Floor New York, NY 10005 Toll-free: 866-953-2189 Toll-free Fax: 877-565-8557
www.lesterpublications.com President: Jeff Lester
Publisher/Editorial Director: Jill Harris Editorial Assistant: Andrew Harris Art Director: Myles O’Reilly
Senior Graphic Designer: John Lyttle
Digital Media Manager Gayl Punzalan
Upcoming Events
Advertising Sales: Quinn Bogusky, Louise Peterson Distribution: Nikki Manalo Nov. 15-16, 2016
Drone World Expo San Jose, Calif.
Nov. 8-10, 2016 UTM Convention 2016 Syracuse, N.Y.
2
ATCA Bulletin | No. 10, 2016
March 7-9, 2017
Word ATM Congress 2017 Madrid, Spain
© 2016 Air Traffic Control Association, Inc. All rights reserved. The contents of this publication may not be reproduced by any means, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of ATCA. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the authors of the editorial articles contained in this publication are those of the respective authors and do not necessarily represent the opinion of ATCA. Cover photo: Dusan Petkovic/Shutterstock.com
Committee (NAC) and implemented by the FAA as a way to manage our limited resources. I also heard that while some outside the FAA see the acquisition team being out-paced by the private sector, it’s really an “urban legend.” Under today’s acquisition and funding structure, there is a two-year lag between a good idea and funding. This lag might look like an acquisition problem, but it’s really a funding problem. In the theme of “emerging trends,” we had panels discuss the FAA’s new surveillance strategy, which will modernize several of the surveillance radars used by FAA, Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The new surveillance radars will require a smaller spectrum footprint and the newly freed up spectrum would then be auctioned off to pay for the modernization effort. This panel felt the real difficultly would be agreeing to multi-agency performance requirements. We also discussed unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and the management structure that will emerge as they are integrated into the airspace. Panelists and attendees pondered questions about user fees and avionic requirements for UAS (we will explore those questions more deeply at UTM Convention 2016). We
also discussed the new performance-based navigation (PBN) strategy and the many ways we are moving forward with difficult and unexpected lessons learned. In the theme of “providing stakeholders an arena,” we heard from some international air navigation service providers (ANSPs), who provided great new insights to the same old problems. One ANSP operator with limited financial resources noted that ANSPs must be more creative and thoughtful when allocating money. That same operator mentioned that their clients (airlines) are incredibly adept at competitive strategies and yet, we don’t seem to take advantage of that knowledge in how we operate our air traffic management (ATM) systems. In addition to intriguing panels, I had lots of fascinating conversations. One of the things I mentioned in my opening statement was that it’s time to discuss the “next” NextGen. My point was that we will never stop modernizing and yet, many are asking, “Is NextGen done yet?” Maybe it’s time to change the conversation, to say that NextGen is complete and start over with a new name. This theme was not necessarily picked up in the panels, but I had many people, including several top FAA officials, come up to me to discuss the idea. One of those FAA officials said to me: “I have had several conversations internally about this,
but none in a public forum.” I immediately thought of a phrase I have used before: ATCA is where the conversation starts. Our membership-driven forums are places where open discussions can occur anywhere at the event – on the stage, during breaks, at a reception, and on the Exhibit Hall floor, and, just as importantly, I think, after Annual ends and we go back to our meetings and our day-to-day. Our conferences are designed to be provocative, to push our community’s thoughts forward, and to vet the next phases for ATM. I believe that our 61st Annual Conference was successful in doing that. This week, we will continue that effort to push forward the discussion on ATM for UAS. UTM Convention 2016 in Syracuse will feature two days of in-depth discussion on the next steps for UAS integration. We know that the solution is not to simply block off some airspace for UAS operations and block off airspace for traditional aircraft. It’s not that simple; it never is. The full potential for UAS comes when we conceive and implement an integrated solution. So, I, along with my lean and mean staff of 11, will be traveling to upstate New York to host UTM Convention 2016. Thank you for taking part in our discussions at ATCA Annual. I look forward to our next conversation. ATCA Bulletin | No. 10, 2016
Anton Foltin/Shutterstock.com
PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
3
PK Knows Drones NASA’s Build-a-Little, Test-a-Little Approach to UTM By Kristen Knott, ATCA Writer and Editor
S
olving the Rubik’s Cube that is UAS Traffic Management (UTM), and integrating it into the NAS, is a behemoth task. How does one plan for a technology that wasn’t even taken seriously a few years ago? The uses of UAS now span from deliveries to weather monitoring to crop dusting, and the list keeps growing. On top of that, the FAA forecasts that sales of commercial small UAS (those weighing less than 55 lbs.) requiring registration could balloon to 2.7 million per year by 2020.1 So, where to start? With research, of course! That’s where NASA comes in. When you hear the words “NASA” and “drones” in the same sentence, you immedi-
ately think of PK, or Dr. Parimal Kopardekar, NASA’s Safe Autonomous System Operations Project Manager. Kopardekar and other experts, will participate in UTM Convention 2016 in Syracuse, N.Y., which will include briefings on last month’s technical capability level (TCL) demonstration 2. As overwhelming as mapping out UTM seems, NASA isn’t worried – they’ve been here before with NAS traffic management. About six decades ago, the NAS started out as a blank canvas, too. NASA has been conducting ATM research and development for more than two decades and aeronautics research for even longer than that.
“We still focus on R&D [research and development] as our main mission, but accommodating drones in airspace has become a big part of that,” said Kopardekar. “I would like to think that UTM offers a transformation to accelerate new entrants in the airspace using a confluence of technologies – automation on the vehicle, connected platform, and API [Application Protocol Interface]-based system for interoperability and information exchange.” Of course, this doesn’t happen overnight. While UTM is a newer concept to the general public and 2016 seemingly has been the year of drones, it’s been on NASA’s radar for some time. It was Continued on page 7
4
ATCA Bulletin | No. 10, 2016
Dmitry Kalinovsky/Shutterstock.com
“UTM 2015 changed the dynamics and was a watershed moment to bring all together to focus on safe integration of UAS in low-altitude airspace.” – Dr. Parimal Kopardekar, Safe Autonomous System Operations Project Manager, NASA
ATCA Bulletin | No. 10, 2016
5
originally a part of their UAS integration strategy. Kopardekar loves the challenge of integrating UTM into the NAS. For him, it’s the ultimate puzzle. The challenges in this task have been abundant, such as accommodating for a wide range of performance characteristics, use cases, and geographical, and airspace constraints.1 Kopardekar rose to the challenge by first developing a concept of operations (ConOps) to define the scope of NASA’s UTM research initiative. The ConOps centered around a “risk-based approach where geographical needs and use cases determine the airspace performance requirements,” and allowed for “flexibility where possible and structure where necessary.”1 The next step was to test this theory. As part of its research platform, NASA will hold four successive TCLs, or field trials, every 12-18 months to simulate “sparse UAS operations in rural areas to dense UAS operations in urban environments.”1 Kopardekar and his team have been instrumental in TCLs 1 and 2, the first of which was conducted in August 2015 at Crows Landing Airport in California and then successfully tested simultaneously at FAA UAS test sites around the country in April 2016. Right before TCL 1, the growing UAS community gathered at NASA’s Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, Calif., for
UTM Convention 2015. “UTM 2015 changed the dynamics and was a watershed moment to bring all together to focus on safe integration of UAS in low-altitude airspace,” said Kopardekar. “At that convention, we defined the characterization of opportunity and challenge. Now, fast forward one year, we have a good bit of understanding of where we are and where we are headed in addressing the challenge. We have made good progress in some key areas, such as roles and responsibilities and information architecture.” The biggest difference between TCLs 1 and 2 is that Capability 2 supported multiple UAS operating beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS), which has been one of the greatest UTM challenges. It also permitted “increased traffic density by allowing segmented and altitude separated flight plans.”1 Next week at UTM Convention 2016, Kopardekar and others will explain the results of last month’s TCL 2 demonstration. Of course, NASA isn’t alone in this endeavor. “NASA is just one of the organizations that’s helping the entire UAS ecosystem,” said Kopardekar. The TCLs are joint efforts between NASA and its government, industry, and academic partners – most notably including the FAA’s Research Transition Team (RTT). At this point, the list of collaborators has grown beyond 200 and includes FAA, DoD, DHS, DOI, FAA
test sites, FAA’s UAS Center of Excellence, organizations like ATCA, and many more. So, what’s next for Kopardekar and his NASA crew? Testing TCL 2 at the FAA’s UAS test sites, more research about UAS operations in suburban and urban areas, and gearing up for TCL 3, just to name a few. “This year, we’ve made significant strides to show what we’ve accomplished. For 2017, our goal is to show more progress, approaches, and opportunities.” While TCL 3 will introduce UAS near manned aircraft over more populated areas, TCL 4 will test how the NAS handles all large and small-scale UAS vehicles moving simultaneously near manned aircraft. “With TCLs 3 and 4, we’ll help the FAA and the Research Transition Team get to a safe operation – safety is everyone’s number one goal,” said Kopardekar. One thing’s for sure: the next year will be a busy one for PK and NASA. Not to worry though – he’s never been more excited.
Endnote
[1.] UTM Concept of Operations; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Parimal Kopardekar, Joseph Rios, Thomas Prevot, Marcus Johnson, Jaewoo Jung, and John E. Robinson III, NASA Ames Research Center.
ATCA Bulletin | No. 10, 2016
7
A Look Back at #ATCA61
8
ATCA Bulletin | No. 10, 2016
ATCA Bulletin | No. 10, 2016
9
IT’S TIME FOR A NEW APPROACH TO ATM
With the ever-growing amount of traffic in the sky, air traffic management (ATM) is a critical priority that requires continuous progress. Working together with industry and government organizations, Boeing is committed to an ATM transformation that improves safety, efficiency and the environment for all. At the core of Boeing’s ATM solutions are secure network-centric operations that will incorporate the capabilities of modern airplanes, as well as ensure global interoperability and real-time access to critical information. The time is now, and Boeing is ready to help.
boeing.com/commercial
O
ne key advantage of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) is enabling pilots of transoceanic flights to climb or descend to more optimal, fuel-saving altitudes. In-Trail Procedures (ITP), an ADS-B In application, enables reduced separation between aircraft. Since radar is not available over most
By Clif Stroud and Lisa D. Williams, FAA’s NextGen Performance and Outreach
oceanic airspace, pilots have had to maintain aircraft separation of about 80-100 nautical miles – often limiting their ability to change altitude. With satellite-enabled navigation procedures that use GPS and other navigation sensors, this separation can be reduced to about 30 nautical miles. In October 2013, United Airlines began an ITP trial with the FAA in select
airspace over the Pacific Ocean using 12 Boeing 747-400s equipped with ADS-B In and ITP software. American Airlines and Delta Air Lines participated in a similar ITP trial over the North Atlantic. In an FAA report summarizing the benefits of ADS-B and ITP dated December 2015, transatlantic ADS-B ITP-equipped flights saved an average of 670 pounds of
Jaromir Chalabala/Shutterstock.com
In-Trail Procedures
Saving Fuel and Boosting Pilots’ Situational Awareness in Oceanic Airspace
ATCA Bulletin | No. 10, 2016
11
“What that situational awareness allows our crews to do is to make more intelligent decisions.”
fuel and equipped transpacific flights saved 521 pounds. For ITP-equipped aircraft, operators saved an average of 573 pounds of fuel per flight compared to aircraft without ITP equipment. Traffic levels are greater over the North Atlantic region than the Pacific, and that traffic is more tightly spaced. This accounts for the disparity in fuel savings, and can make it more difficult for transatlantic flights to receive ATC approval for climbs. In addition to potential fuel savings, ITP also enhances pilots’ situational awareness. Aircraft equipped with ITP have an ADS-B In display that gives pilots a topdown view of the surrounding airspace, and a vertical view that shows the altitude of nearby aircraft. With a better understanding of the complete traffic picture, flight crews can make more-informed requests of ATC – with a better chance of getting approval for their occasional ITP climb requests. 12
ATCA Bulletin | No. 10, 2016
“What that situational awareness allows our crews to do is to make more intelligent decisions about when they make a normal climb – not an ITP climb – and whether it will be approved or not,” said Rocky Stone, chief technical pilot for surveillance systems at United Airlines. “Because of that, they’re making smarter requests for climbs,” he added. “The new display shows all ADS-B traffic within a 250-mile radius, compared to 40 miles with the older system. There’s much more information for the pilots to base their decision on.” In discussions between United pilots and human factors experts at the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center in Massachusetts, pilots generally rated the value of ITP as high, not for the procedure itself, but for the situational awareness enabled by the ITP display. Many pilots said that they could make more efficient and effective altitude change requests
based on the ITP traffic display, and that there could be an economic benefit for using the display to make a request. The FAA will implement ITP software changes to Advanced Technologies and Oceanic Procedures (ATOP) at the Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center this year, with the New York and Anchorage centers to follow. After the software updates, any ITP-equipped aircraft operating in this airspace may request an ITP maneuver. “A few years ago, industry prioritized a number of ADS-B In applications and asked the FAA to demonstrate benefits for them,” said David Gray, surveillance and broadcast services program manager for the FAA. “This ITP report not only shows that NextGen is here today and that the benefits are real, but it also highlights the importance of FAA’s continuing work on ADS-B In applications.”
SvedOliver/Shutterstock.com
– Rocky Stone, Chief Technician Pilot, United Airlines
Meet Glenn
ATCA’s Newest Staff Member! Name: Glenn Cudaback, Digital Media and Marketing Manager ATCA Staff Since: September 2016
Past Lives:
• Glenn grew up in downeast Maine and started his migration south when he went to Northeastern University School of Journalism in Boston, Mass. • His college internships led to his early career in advertising in New York City. • This was followed by marketing communications positions in both Washington, D.C. and Central Pennsylvania.
Fun Facts:
Brian A Jackson/Shutterstock.com
• He currently resides in Arlington, Va. • Most weekends are spent in the mountains of Lost River, W.Va., where he serves as secretary of the local property owners association. • He enjoys cooking for friends, reading graphic novels, going to music festivals, and collecting albums. • His favorite place in Washington, D.C. is the 9:30 club.
ATCA Bulletin | No. 10, 2016
13
Congratulations
On behalf of ATCA and the Publications Committee, congratulations to this year’s top three The Journal of Air Traffic Control articles Summer 2016 | VOLUME 58, NO. 2
1. The Drones Are Coming: Is the National Airspace System Prepared? (Summer 2016) • Frederick Wieland, Ph.D., Intelligent Automation, Inc.
DRONES ARE COMING – Is the NAS Prepared?
UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS
Plus • One Year of Time-Based Separation at Heathrow • The Effect of Sun and Solar Winds on Modern Aviation
Is the National Airspace System Prepared? By Frederick Wieland, Ph.D., Intelligent Automation, Inc.
3. Who’s in Control? Securing Commercial Unmanned Aerial Systems Command and Control – A Methodology and Way Ahead (Winter 2015) • Dr. Rusty Baldwin, CISSP Riverside Research • Dr. Terry Hofecker, Unmanned Science, Inc. • Greg Carter, Electronic Warfare Associates Winter 2015 | VOLUME 57, NO. 4
T
24
Summer 2016
LEARNING AIRCRAFT BEHAVIOR from Real Air Traffic
Dmitry Kalinovsky; Alexey Yuzhakov/Shutterstock.com
here is no doubt that the future evolution of the NAS must take Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) seriously. The aerospace community is preparing for such a future. The RTCA’s Special Committee 228 is addressing UAS integration in the NAS. NASA’s UAS Traffic Management (UTM) program is experimenting with rules for small UAS at low altitudes. The FAA has issued its small UAS rule and is working toward larger scale integration. Various UAS test sites are running experiments, and industry is busy developing detect-and-avoid and other technologies required for integration. All of these simultaneous preparations beg a couple important questions: how many civilian UAS flights will the NAS have to ultimately handle? And what will be the implications for the NAS when UAS are fully integrated? To address this question, NASA funded a two-year research study led by Intelligent Automation, Inc. (IAI), with participation from Virginia Polytechnic University. The study forecasted future UAS flight volume at 2,000 feet above ground level (AGL) and higher[1]. The study also estimated future UAS f light volume, airport and airspace usage, flight routes, and aircraft types by interviewing over 50 subject matter experts (SMEs) representing over 29 civil/ government and industrial organizations that already use or are planning to use UAS technology. In addition, IAI scanned published articles on planned UAS missions
and estimated demand for transportationrelated UAS missions (such as UAS cargo delivery and air taxi) through socioeconomic modeling. Finally, IAI investigated what impact these flights would have on the existing NAS architecture. In order to forecast demand, researchers must investigate the history of UAS demand forecasting, a field which has a surprising past. The earliest study found is a 1976 report by Lockheed Missiles and Space Command for NASA’s Ames Research Laboratory[2]. Back
Plus
then, UAS were called Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs). That study interviewed 60 potential civilian users of UAS, and identified 35 applications of the technology. Instead of estimating UAS flights, these and other early studies concentrated on the total demand for UAVs. The Lockheed study estimated a demand that translates to manufacturing 2,000 – 11,000 total UAVs, with full adoption of the technology by 1985. They noted that the environmental problems were minimal, and that safety The Journal of Air Traffic Control
• Standards for Data Quality Assurance in ATM Modernization Initiatives • Voluntary Safety Reporting in the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization • What’s Next for Air Traffic Control Training in the FAA?
25
SECURING UAS
WHO’S IN CONTROL? Securing Commercial Unmanned Aerial Systems Command and Control – A Methodology and Way Ahead
The possibility of a security vulnerability endangering public safety if we continue “business as usual” is very real.
By Dr. Rusty Baldwin, CISSP Riverside Research, Dr. Terry Hofecker, Unmanned Science, Inc., and Greg Carter, Electronic Warfare Associates
O
with simple hardware controls like buttons, switches, and a joystick. Together, these transmit appropriately encoded commands via the data link to the UAS. This type of GCS is usually limited to Line of Sight (LOS) communications and more often than not is transmit only. Thus, the operator must visually verify commands are received and acted upon. Modern commercial-grade UAS have GCSs that invariably incorporate transceivers to send commands to the UAS as well as receive status messages from the UAS via the data link. These GCSs can be dedicated consoles but more and more manufacturers are offering software-based options with laptop computers, smartphones, or tablets serving as the host hardware platforms. Data Link: Though the frequencies used by UAS C2 data-links span much of the RF spectrum, the frequencies used in commercial UAS are typically in the 915 MHz (433 MHz in some countries) or 2.4 GHz industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) bands. The 915 MHz data-links have the advantage of greater range while 2.4 GHz data links, though limited to LOS operations, are ubiquitous due to Wi-Fi sharing the same frequency and thus potentially turning virtually any Wi-Fi-enabled device into a GCS. Common digital modulation schemes used include Pulse Coded Modulation (PCM) and Pulse Position Modulation (PPM). Flight Controller: The Flight Controller (FC) on a UAS itself executes the commands received from the GCS via the datalink with respect to the flight of the UAS. Though the term FC does not necessarily imply any autopilot functionality, in the context of UAS FC and autopilot have become synonymous and are often used interchangeably. Typical UAS autopilot components include [2]: (1) a wireless communication system, (2) a microprocessor that hosts the Overview of a Typical UAS Command and Control System There are three fundamental subsystems in any UAS C2 system: flight control software and performs computations associated with (1) the ground control station (GCS), (2) the Data Link over which onboard sensors as well as executes commands sent by the GCS, (3) commands and responses travel, and (3) the Flight Controller on the a magnetometer for measuring direction, (4) a Global Positioning System (GPS) and/or an inertial measurement (IMU) unit, (5) a UAS itself. Ground Control Station: The GCS is the means by which an pitot-static system to measure air speed and altitude, (6) actuators to UAS operator interacts with the UAS. A GCS may be as unsophis- move control surfaces, and (7) manual flight controls for direct GCS ticated as Radio Control (RC) gear, which is essentially a transmitter access to control surfaces. ur nation’s computer systems, networks, and critical infrastructure are under constant cyber-attack. Media outlets document such attacks with disturbing regularity – even daily. Recent headlines, in fact, indicate that UAS security is an issue that can no longer be ignored: “Drone Sightings Up Dramatically” (AP News 11/12/14), “Drone Almost Collides With Jet at One of World’s Busiest Airports in Latest Incident” (Fox News 12/8/14), “Are Unmanned Systems the next Cyber Target?” (C4ISR and Networks 8/4/14), and “Drunk Droning Results in White House Breach” (MSNBC 1/27/15). Perhaps more disturbing than the number of headlines is that efforts to recover from cyber-attacks are too often a hasty and frantic race to patch a system (or systems) rather than develop deliberate, thoughtful solutions that address the underlying issues that gave rise to the vulnerabilities in the first place. This “bolt-on” approach has failed in at least two ways: (1) economically – bolt-on security is demonstrably the most expensive way to address security issues, and (2) systemically – bolt-on security cannot result in a secure system because it treats symptoms rather than the underlying root causes. Public safety and the need to establish and maintain public trust in the secure and trustworthy operation of UAS renders this bolt-on approach unacceptable. The possibility of a security vulnerability endangering public safety if we continue “business as usual” is very real. In the context of the command and control (C2) of UAS addressed herein, the importance of these security vulnerabilities rises to a new level.
24
Open source autopilots are quite popular. ArduPilotMega (APM) (ardupilot.com) and PX4 flight stack (pixhawk.org/start) from 3DR (3drobotics.com) dominate the open source autopilot landscape. Both can be hosted on the PX4 PIXHawk open hardware module (pixhawk.org/modules/pixhawk) which uses the NuttX realtime operating system (www.nuttx.org). In addition, APM also has a native hardware platform APM 2.6. APM is used in the ArduPlane, ArduRover, ArduCopter platforms. Both PIXHawk and APM 2.6 are PPM-input autopilots. Proprietary autopilots include DJI (www.dji.com), a Chinese UAS maker that has developed the NAZA and ACEone series autopilots among others. These autopilots are used in the Phantom 2 UAS, which is an extremely popular and capable UAS. The US-based Cloud Cap Technology produces the Piccolo series autopilots (www.cloudcaptech.com), which include integrated sensors, GPS, and data link radios supporting the 310-390 MHz, 900 MHz, 1350-1390 MHz, 1670-1700 MHz, and 2.4 GHz frequency bands. Paper Overview The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In the section “UAS Command and Control Risks and Vulnerabilities,” we examine certain risks and vulnerabilities that may be present in physical layer communication and telemetry links as well as in the communications protocols used in commercial UAS. We also consider threats inherent in the commodity hardware and software used in UAS. The “Secure C2 Design Approach” section presents our mitigation approach and proposed way forward to securing UAS C2 systems. Hallmarks of our methodology include methodical assessment of risks and the likelihood of vulnerability exploitation with a goal of root cause identification. We leverage our methodology to develop or enhance protocols, systems, and procedures with verifiable security mechanisms that have security designed-in rather than bolted-on. This is followed by a summary of this paper, our consortium’s unique capabilities and skills in this area and references.
Winter 2015
The Journal of Air Traffic Control
WINTER WEATHER
Fall 2015 | VOLUME 57, NO. 3
Coping with Adverse Winter Weather Emerging Capabilities in Support of Airport and Airline Operations By Matthias Steiner, Amanda R. S. Anderson, Scott Landolt, and Seth Linden, National Center for Atmospheric Research and Benjamin R. J. Schwedler, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere and NOAA/NWS Aviation Weather Center
Sid Koslow
Winner of the 2015 Glen A. Gilbert Memorial Award
W
inter weather has the potential to significantly disrupt airport and airline operations yielding flight delays, diversions, and cancellations.1, 2, 3, 4 The impacts thereof may be felt throughout the National Airspace System (NAS) and notably beyond the duration of a winter weather event, as recovery doesn’t occur immediately. Moreover, in some situations hazardous conditions created by freezing rain, slush, snow, drifting snow, or ice may lead to aircraft incidents or accidents.5, 6, 7 Safety and efficiency of flight operations are the primary concerns of any operator, but they need special attention during winter conditions. Both hinge on timely and accurate detection and predictions of weather and anticipated implications for an airport’s 36
14
ATCA Bulletin | No. 10, 2016
Fall 2015
capacity. Effectively managing adverse winter weather conditions requires collaboration in a complex decision-making environment among inter-dependent stakeholders with varied objectives.8 For example, airport operators are concerned about their ability to clear both the airside (i.e., runways, taxiways, de/anti-icing pads, and ramp areas) and the landside (access roads to/from the airport and parking lots) from snow and ice accumulations, and to safely operate all facilities during the winter event. Airline operators are concerned about their flight schedules, like delays and cancellations, crew time restrictions and tarmac rule compliance, and a strategy to reposition resources for recovery after the winter event. Depending on the particular airport, the de/anti-icing operations may be the responsibility of either the airport authority or airlines. Air traffic
control (ATC) is focused on expected airport arrival and departure capacities and how to manage them by means of appropriate Traffic Management Initiatives (TMI). Besides these key stakeholders, there are many others that should be included in a shared situational awareness of the approaching winter weather event as well, like the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), emergency managers, concession, facilities, and special services operators, etc.8 Preparatory decisions on airport staffing, readying snow removal and de/anti-icing equipment, and setting initial pavement treatment strategies are typically made 24 to 48 hours ahead of the expected onset of high-impact winter conditions. Similarly, airlines consider their flight schedules within that timeframe as well, in order to issue timely cancellations and manage rebooking of pas-
sengers, etc. Suboptimal or wrong decisions based on misleading weather forecasts can result in costly delays, diversions and lastminute cancellations, and/or a notably underutilized airport capacity. 3 Sources of Weather-Related Information Timely and accurate information about rapidly changing winter conditions and expected impacts is crucial for effectively managing high-impact weather events by minimizing avoidable loss and maximizing use of available airport and airline capacity. Safe and efficient flight operations require detailed information about the timing, magnitude, and spatial and temporal variation of precipitation (specifically type, intensity, and liquid water equivalent), temperature,
Continued on page 40
The Journal of Air Traffic Control
Pavel L Photo and Video/Shutterstock.com
Plus
• Big Data Flows Through NextGen • Change is Tantalizingly Close for the FAA • Coping with Adverse Winter Weather
UAS Command and Control Risks and Vulnerabilities UAS share most of the same risks and vulnerabilities found in typical computers and networks and then some. UAS are in many ways a flying computer controlled via wireless networks. We should expect, therefore that they will be (and are) a target for attack – cyber-attacks are indeed ahead. Further, we should expect that since securing computers and networks is hard, securing UAS will present similar difficulties and challenges. But UAS also share many of the same risks and vulnerabilities as emerging autonomy and collision avoidance technologies beginning to be incorporated into automobiles. Both use inputs from external systems as control inputs (thereby providing additional attack vectors), both have C2 systems, the proper operation of which directly impacts the safe operation of the vehicle itself, other vehicles in the vicinity, and vehicle occupants. Furthermore, even though UAS and vehicle autonomy technology rely on critical inputs from external systems and sensors (e.g., GPS), the communication links over which such information is received too often uses weak or even no encryption. However, UAS also have their own distinct and unique challenges as well. In manned aircraft or automobiles with collision avoidance technologies there is an operator in immediate control (i.e., if need be, an operator can take command of the vehicle without risking collision with other vehicles in the immediate vicinity [6]). UAS have no operator in “immediate control” in that sense. A UAS operator is only in “indirect control” via a wireless link. The loss of this link leaves most UAS either (1) uncontrolled, (2) executing the last valid command, or (3) invoking a rudimentary “return to home” navigation routine. This link loss behavior only heightens the vulnerability of the UAS with respect to C2 and external inputs such as GPS to maintain control. The overall effect of both the commonalities and differences UAS have with other systems, not to mention the real dangers presented by malicious actors taking control of UAS, only magnifies the need to secure them. And yet at a 2013 NATO conference two prominent UAS researchers noted, “It is interesting and bizarre that
37
Ahturner/Shutterstock.com
2. Coping with Adverse Winter Weather: Emerging Capabilities in Support of Airport and Airline Operations (Fall 2015) • Matthias Steiner, National Center for Atmospheric Research • Amanda R. S. Anderson, National Center for Atmospheric Research • Scott Landolt, National Center for Atmospheric Research • Seth Linden, National Center for Atmospheric Research • Benjamin R. J. Schwedler, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, NOAA/NWS Aviation Weather Center
25
A Moment in Aviation History On September 26, 1984 ‌
FAA announced the award of a construction contract to expand the Seattle Air Route Traffic Control Center, the first in a program to expand all 20 en route centers in the contiguous states. The construction would allow the facilities to accommodate more sophisticated computers and radar displays being developed under the Advanced Automation Program. The Seattle groundbreaking ceremony took place on November 5, 1984.
Mauromod/Shutterstock.com
– FAA Historical Chronology
Officers and Board of Directors Chairman, Charles Keegan Chairman-Elect, Cynthia Castillo President & CEO, Peter F. Dumont East Area Director, Susan Chodakewitz Pacific Area, Asia, Australia Director, Peter Fiegehen South Central Area Director, William Cotton Northeast Area Director, Mike Ball Southeast Area Director, Jack McAuley North Central Area Director, Bill Ellis West Area Director and Secretary, Chip Meserole Canada, Caribbean, Central and South America, Mexico Area Director, Rudy Kellar Europe, Africa, Middle East Area Director, Jonathan Astill Director-at-Large, Rick Day Director-at-Large, Vinny Capezzuto Director-at-Large, Michael Headley Director-at-Large, Fran Hill
Staff Marion Brophy, Communications Specialist Ken Carlisle, Director, Meetings and Expositions Theresa Clair, Associate Director, Meetings and Expositions Glenn Cudaback, Manager, Digital Media and Marketing Abigail Glenn-Chase, Director, Communications Ashley Haskins, Office Manager Kristen Knott, Writer and Editor Christine Oster, Chief Financial Officer Paul Planzer, Manager, ATC Programs Rugger Smith, International Development Liaison Sandra Strickland, Events and Exhibits Coordinator Tim Wagner, Manager, Membership