Effectiveness of the Case Analysis Tool and Recommendations for Course Improvement

This was not my first time using the case analysis approach. The structure is very simple and to the point, which suites my style of writing. I do like the fact that a background can be included because this is where you can give information to help the reader understand the bigger picture and include details to help decipher the rest of your paper if need be (i.e. if it’s very technical in nature and/or if there is previous research that the paper is building on).  I believe it is a very effective tool for presenting a balanced argument, then choosing a particular recommendation.  

In the military we use the case analysis way of thinking differently depending on the circumstances and any time constraints that are present. In an academic setting, the case analysis tool is a good way to write about a particular issue and look at alternatives. Because this tool can be used in a short or more detailed manner, it can be suite the needs of the project (buying a new scale or debating a war plan) and sometimes the individual.  In the field we don’t have the time to write a paper, so the decision making process is a lot shorter and narrowed to these areas: issue, alternative(s) advantages and disadvantages, and the decision). In the office, a case analysis is confined to a well formatted email or more likely, power-point slides that cover all the major areas (intro, background, etc) of the case analysis tool. The office circumstance is between being in the field and the academia setting when it comes to time constraints. So, you have more time to research alternatives but not enough time to write a big paper about it. The presentation or email must get to the point quick and still include enough details so people reading it can understand the purpose for it!  In my current line of work I use the field style, whereas before, the office style (power-points/emails) worked well for the projects I managed.

I do have a few recommendations to improve the writing aspect for the student’s sake. First do away with abstract and the abstract defense. I felt they were unnecessary and I have reservations about writing the abstract before the paper, because the abstract is bits and pieces taken from the paper to give the reader a taste of what they are about to read overall. It needs to be replaced (see weeks 1-3 on timeline below). We were given a template to follow in regards to the major areas. I felt it necessary to add a background section to mine and by looking at a few resources on line, a case analysis can include both a background and proposed solution areas in the paper. I think these options should be made available to the students in the template that is sent out. Thirdly, I thought the students choosing who to select for reviews had a few hiccups. To caveat, there were an odd number of students. This meant someone had to do more than the required two reviews and on two occasions, students were docked points because someone didn’t review there paper. It took instructor intervention to get them done. I think the instructor should assign who will review other students work as this will avoid any ambiguity and prevent instructor intervention later on.  Finally, I would alter the timeline of events to the follow:

Week 1:  Topic Research/Selection

Week 2:  Outline Due   

Week 3:  Outline Peer Review

            Week 4: Outline Peer Review Defense

Week 5:  Rough Draft Due

Week 6:  Rough Draft Peer Review

Week 7:  Rough Draft Peer Review Defense

Week 8:  Final Draft Due

Week 9:  Presentation Due

I did like the fact that the final draft and presentations were due at different times. In the past I had a class were both were due at the same time, but to the teacher/classes defense, I had an extra week to work on the final draft. So, I’m indifferent really but would prefer the former where separation of the assignments is given. I also liked the fact that we gave a defense in regards to the peer reviews we were given. This helped me stay on top of my paper also! I’m usually good about make changes to my paper without having to write about how I will do it, but I will admit writing a defense helped me see the reviewer’s side better, and I was more organized making the recommended changes.

Request for Proposal (RFP): Search and Rescue (SAR) Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)

SAR Mission Overview

SAR is the search for and provision of aid to people who are in distress or imminent danger and includes many different types depending on the terrain, or lack thereof (water), where the search is conducted over (Definitions for Search and Rescue, n.d.). These types include mountain rescue, air-sea rescue, and ground and urban SAR (Definitions for Search and Rescue, n.d.). The search phase is conducive to finding missing persons in last known locations or in locations that are known to be effected by natural disasters. In each case, the status of such individuals are unknown and the quicker there location is determined, the more successful the recovery process will be in returning them alive. Once found, the rescue phase involves recovery such persons in non-threatening situations all the way to extreme environments and conditions. The ability to perform fast and effective SAR operations in such cases and during these situations is crucial to increasing their chances of survival. Sometimes, immediate actions to support medical care and basic life support needs may be necessary to stabilize the persons for transport or to keep them alive during the recovery process. The process involves aircraft, surface craft and specialized teams and equipment all working together in a harmonized fashion for mission success (Definitions for Search and Rescue, n.d.).

Purpose and Overview

The purpose of this RFP is to solicit a group 3 vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) UAS that is capable of low altitude, long-endurance (LALE), and beyond line-of-sight (BLOS) flight operations. It must perform a wide range search and rescue missions for the Federal Emergency Management Agency or FEMA. FEMA currently has 28 task forces locations across the United States and each will be provided with a UAS that will perform search and rescues tasks in coordination with manned efforts (Task Force Locations, 2016). Also, it is important to note that the UAS will act in a capacity to reduce risks to manned efforts, access areas where manned efforts may not be possible and reduce the amount of time it takes to response by deploying in advance of full scale manned efforts. The logistics of ground efforts can be hampered at times and the ability of the UAS to have access from the air greatly enhances response timing. The ultimate goal of employing this UAS will be to increase the disaster victims’ chances of survival.

Mission Requirements

The search and rescue mission tasks are defined as:

1. Personnel identification
2. Precise geo-location services
3. Delivering small quantities of food, water, lifesaving, other supplies for immediate on scene medical support and personnel/location sustainment through recovery efforts
4. Suppressing small electrical, oil, and gas fires to assist with recovery efforts via its organic extraction capability or other manned air, land or sea methods

*Ability of the UAS to perform all of these mission tasks is highly desired*

Design Requirements

1.0.  Payload

1.   Shall be capable of color daytime video operation up to 500 feet AGL
   1. [Derived Requirement] – Shall be no lower than High Definition 1080p at 15 fps w/4X digital zoom (Preceptor Dual Sensor Gimbal, 2016)
   2. [Derived Requirement] – Shall have autofocus capability
   3. [Derived Requirement] – Shall automatically adjust brightness and contrast levels as time of day and/or environment changes
   4. [Derived Requirement] – Shall have a field of view 40 by 30 degrees or better
   5. [Derived Requirement] – Shall be moveable 360 degrees (Preceptor Dual Sensor Gimbal, 2016)
   6. [Derived Requirement] – Shall be gimbaled for better stabilization and pointing accuracy (Preceptor Dual Sensor Gimbal, 2016)
   7. [Derived Requirement] – Shall be STANAG 4609 compliant digital video out (Preceptor Dual Sensor Gimbal, 2016)
2.  Shall be capable of infrared (IR) video operation up to 500 feet AGL
   1. [Derived Requirement] –Shall be no lower than High Definition 1080p at 15 fps w/4X digital zoom (Preceptor Dual Sensor Gimbal, 2016)
   2. [Derived Requirement] – Camera shall be cooled to allow for high imaging speed, better magnification, higher sensitivity, and spectral filtering (revealing details and taking measurements) (FLIR Commercial Systems, 2015).
   3. [Derived Requirement] – Shall operate in short to medium wave infrared spectrum for a robust sensor capable of daylight to starlight operation and detecting various IR emitting devices.
   4. [Derived Requirement] – Shall be integrated on the same sensor housing as daytime color video camera.
   5. [Derived Requirement] – Shall have a field of view 40 by 30 degrees or better
   6. [Derived Requirement] – Shall be moveable 360 degrees
   7. [Derived Requirement] – Shall be gimbaled for better stabilization and pointing accuracy (Preceptor Dual Sensor Gimbal, 2016)
   8. [Derived Requirement] – Shall be configurable to white-hot and black-hot modes (Preceptor Dual Sensor Gimbal, 2016)
   9. [Derived Requirement] – Shall be STANAG 4609 compliant digital video out (Preceptor Dual Sensor Gimbal, 2016)
3.   Shall be interoperable with C2 and data-link
   1. [Derived Requirement] – Shall be capable of relaying compressed live video feeds over beyond line of sight datalinks
   2. [Derived Requirement] – Shall be capable of relying housekeeping data back to GCS with regard to status of all payloads (Austin, 2010).
4.   Shall use power provided by air vehicle element
   1. [Derived Requirement] – Shall be DC for alternator and battery operation.
   2. [Derived Requirement] – Shall be switched to allow for power on/off/reset operations
      
      

1.   Data-Link (communications)
   1.   Shall be capable of communication range exceeding two miles visual line of sight (VLOS)
      1. [Derived Requirement] – Shall have beyond line-of-sight Ku-Band satellite communication (SATCOM) capability (BlackRay 71, 2012).
      2. [Derived Requirement] – Uplink/Downlink shall be encrypted to prevent unauthorized control or viewing of video feed.
   2.   Shall provide redundant communication capability (backup) for C2
      1. [Derived Requirement] – Shall be able to operate in backup X band SATCOM mode with the same SATCOM receiver to reduce SWAP requirements (BlackRay 71, 2012).
      2.  [Derived Requirement] – Uplink/Downlink shall be encrypted to prevent unauthorized control or viewing of video feed
   3.   Shall use power provided by air vehicle element
      1. [Derived Requirement] – Shall be DC for alternator and battery operation.
      2. [Derived Requirement] – Shall have a direct connection to the alternator/battery
2. Command and Control (C2)
   1.   Shall be capable of manual and autonomous operation
      1. [Derived Requirement] – Shall allow point-click operations for manual control from a GCS.
      2. [Derived Requirement] – Shall allow dynamic re-tasking for autonomous control via updated programmed missions from a GCS.
   2.   Shall provide redundant flight control to prevent flyaway
      1. [Derived Requirement] – Shall interface separately with two GPS receivers for backup capabilities
      2. [Derived Requirement] – Flight Control components shall be fault tolerate to a certain degree to allow errors to exist and normal operation to continue (nxFCU Dual Redundant Flight Control Unit, 2016).
      3. [Derived Requirement] – Vote processors shall interface between all fault-tolerate components and redundant flight control computers to determine which flight control computer is operating normally
      4. [Derived Requirement] – Shall be small, light-weight and low power (SWAP sensitive) (nxFCU Dual Redundant Flight Control Unit, 2016).
   3.   Shall visually depict telemetry of air vehicle element
      1. [Derived Requirement] – Shall include at a minimum the following indications: airspeed, altitude, vertical speed indicator and attitude
      2. [Derived Requirement] – Shall indicate lower and upper level operational limits by use of yellow and red indications or highlights, respectively    
   4.   Shall visually depict payload sensor views 

Testing Requirements

4.0.  Payload

4.1.  Verify color daytime video operation from one hour after sunrise to one hour before sunset up to 500 feet AGL

4.1.1.   Verify HD picture resolution, performance and zoom levels

4.1.2.   Verify auto image focusing by varying target range from UAS

4.1.3.   Verify auto adjustment of brightness and contrast levels in the sun, in shadows, and at different camera positions

4.1.4.   Verify a field of view of at least 40 by 30 degrees

4.1.5.   Verify camera can be moved in 360 degrees

4.1.6.   Verify image stabilization: Accepting no drifting or jittering of the image with different positions of the camera (straight ahead, looking down, etc).

4.1.7.   Verify video achieves an acceptable STANAG 4609 output file by testing it on a STANAG video recording and playback device

4.2.        Verify infrared (IR) video operation up to 500 feet AGL

4.2.1.   Verify HD picture resolution, performance and zoom levels

4.2.2.   Verify cooling system operation to determine normal operation

4.2.3.   Verify normal operation of SWIR and MWIR   

4.2.4.   Verify both EO and IR sensors are housed together

4.2.5.   Verify field of view parameters

4.2.6.   Verify camera can be moved 360 degrees

4.2.7.   Verify image stabilization: Accepting no drifting or jittering of the image with different positions of the camera (straight ahead, looking down, etc).

4.2.8.   Verify IR can switch between white-hot and black-hot modes

4.2.9.   4.1.7.   Verify video achieves an acceptable STANAG 4609 output file by testing it on a STANAG video recording and playback device

4.3.        Shall be interoperable with C2 and data-link

4.3.1.   Verify compressed live video feeds can be achieve with data rate

4.3.2.   Verify accuracy and completeness of housekeeping data

4.4.        Shall use power provided by air vehicle element

4.4.1.   Verify DC with a multimeter

4.4.2.   Verify sensor can be turned on, off and reset

5.0.        Data-Link (communications)

5.1.        Verify operating of UAS beyond two miles

5.1.1.   Verify operation of UAS in BLOS Ku-SATCOM mode

5.1.2.   Verify encryption by transmitting/receiving from a separate GCS on same frequencies, there should be no degradation of UAS link nor lost link

5.2.      Verify C2 redundancy by sending UAS lost link and gaining it on the back C2 link or performing a link-to-link handover

5.2.1.   Verify no degradation of up/downlink occurs while operating on X-band SATCOM

2.2.2.   Verify encryption by transmitting/receiving from a separate GCS on same frequencies, there should be no degradation of UAS link nor lost link

5.3.        Verify system powers up without any overload or underload conditions

5.3.1.   Verify DC from alternator and battery using multimeter

5.3.2.   Verify direct connection to alternator/battery by failing any buses switched power components.

6.0.      Command and Control (C2)

6.1.      Verify normal operation during manual and autonomous modes

3.1.1.   Verify point-click commands are performed by UAS with no deviations in airspeed, altitude, attitude or routing.

3.1.2.   Verify dynamic re-tasking missions are performed by UAS with no deviations in airspeed, altitude, attitude or routing.

3.2.      Shall provide redundant flight control to prevent flyaway

3.2.1.   Verify correct navigation by failing one GPS receiver

3.2.2.   Verify normal operation of flight control surfaces by inducing faults

3.2.3.   Verify vote processor chooses right flight control computer by failing or powering off the other flight control computer.  

3.2.4.   Weigh unit to ensure conformity to SWAP standards

3.3.      Shall visually depict telemetry of air vehicle element

3.3.1.   Verify airspeed, altitude, vertical speed indicator and attitude indications are displayed

3.3.2.   Verify color indications are displayed when operational limits are exceeded

3.4.      Ensure link can support data rate requirements of sensor(s) without any video degradation 

Testing and Development Strategies

From start to finish the total time from concept to production of this UAS will take two years using the 10-phase waterfall development methodology (Module 3: Solution Management Commentary, 2012). The timeline is as follows:

1. Initiation: one week                     
2. System Concept Development: one week        *FEMA personnel included*
3. Planning: one week
4. Requirements: one week                                   *based on traditional manned roles*
5. Design: one month                                            *FEMA personnel included*
6. Development: two months      
7. Integration and Testing: three months       * most time for problem/error mitigation*
8. Implementation: two months                     *operation w/FEMA personnel + feedback*
9. Operations and Maintenance: two months
10. Production: six months to one year

**Timeline Reference: Adapted from Module 3: Solution Management Commentary. (2012). Retrieved from http://lib.convdocs.org/docs/index-232435.html?page=5**

The sequential phases ensure that one is completed before moving on to the next and ensures traceability, quality and reliability of the UAS. Since the requirements of this UAS are fixed on completing traditional SAR tasks, the risk of changing or evolving requirements that might require a different approach (or revisiting the drawing board altogether) is not necessary. Nonetheless, there is an acceptable level of overlap and splashback between the phases to account for any issues that may arise.

            For the testing process, a lot of testing can of the UAS itself can be performed on the ground since it is a vertical take-off and land UAS (Austin, 2010). This ensures high confidence of operation when the in-flight testing phase begins (Austin, 2010). Components, followed by subsystems, followed by integration testing with be the separate phases of the ground testing process. In-Flight testing will validate data obtained from full integration ground tests. In addition, it will include mountainous terrain and unplanned/random environmental effects (like high wind/gusts, dust, etc).  Flight testing will take place on the white sands missile range due to ease of airspace access, mountainous terrain, and random environmental effects that occur. Testing can begin immediately due to the availability of restricted airspace rather than waiting for the long and length COA process required by the FAA. Instead, a memorandum of agreement will be drafted with the Department of Defense for use of the white sands missile range, taking less time to complete.

           

References

Austin, R. (2010). Aerospace Series: Unmanned Aircraft Systems: UAVS Design,

Development and Deployment (1). Hoboken, GB: Wiley. Retrieved from

http://www.ebrary.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu

Definitions for search and Rescue. (n.d.). The Web’s Largest Resource for Definitions and

Translations. Retrieved from http://www.definitions.net/definition/search%20and

%20rescue

nxFCU Dual Redundant Flight Control Unit. (2016). S-Plane Automation (PTY) LTD.

Retrieved from http://www.s-plane.com/products/nxseries/nxfcu-dual/

Preceptor Dual Sensor Gimbal. (2016). Lockheed Martin. Retrieved from

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/procerus/perceptor.html

Task Force Locations. (2016). Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Retrieved

from http://www.fema.gov/task-force-locations

FLIR Commercial Systems. (2015). Thermal Imaging Cameras – Cooled vs Uncooled. AZO

Materials: Retrieved from http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=11966

Using Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) For Wildland Firefighting

Wildland Fires
Wildland fires are extremely complex and present some of the most dangerous and devastating threats to lives and property in the United States (Wildland Fires, 2016 & Nix, 2016). It is estimated that 72,000 communities are at risk of being in danger from them (Wildland Fires, 2016). In 2015 alone, there were approximately 68,000 wildland fires that burned over 10 million acres and destroyed 4,636 structures (Wildland Fires, 2016). Wildland fires occur due to a "combination of drought, warmer temperatures, high winds and an excess of dried vegetation in forests and grasslands" (Wildland Fires, 2016).

How Wildland Fires Are Fought Today and The Risks

Traditional methods of fighting wildland fires depend upon ground personnel and manned helicopter and fixed wing aircraft that deploy specially trained firefighters, employ thermal imagery sensors and drop water or fire retardant from high above during daylight hours (Hinkley, Zajkowski, Ambrosia, & Schoenung, 2007 & Than, 2013). The first responders are called "smoke jumpers," and they parachute near the inferno to employ methods aimed at cutting the fires fuel supply, in order to contain it (Than, 2013). They jump into remote areas that would otherwise take days to access by hiking and are completely inaccessible by ground vehicles (Than, 2013). Airborne tankers are charged with deploying water or fire retardant in order to battle large fires while helicopters deal with smaller, spot fires. Both ground and airborne methods put firefighters and aircrews at risk. In 2013, 19 firefighter lost their lives battling a blaze in Arizona (Than, 2013). In 2014, a 13-year veteran pilot was killed when his S-2T air tanker struck an object on the ground as he attempted to drop retardant on a mountain fire (FAA releases preliminary cause of S-2T crash, 2014). These are only a few examples of the extreme risks fighting
wildland fires. More non-risky operations deal with the manned aircraft conducting fire surveillance  during daylight hours (Than, 2013). As the military uses UASs for dull, dirty and dangerous missions, there is no wonder why such a platform could be used to assist with or take on a leading role for a dangerous mission such as wildland firefighting (Hinkley, Zajkowski, Ambrosia, & Schoenung, 2007).

UAS Application for Wildfire Fighting Operation
The use of drones in other applications has sparked an interest in using it for fire service, specifically wildland firefighting. However, there is a mixed reaction to UASs near wildland fires especially when they are not a part of the operation. While trying to document fires, certain hobbyists and photographers have created unnecessary risks (Templeton, 2015). The potential for mid-air collisions in this environment is very high since both UASs and manned aircraft are operating at lower altitudes (Templeton, 2015). Temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) are issued by the FAA and serve to prohibit UASs from operating in these areas; however, these TFRs go unnoticed and are routinely violated (Templeton, 2015). Drone use over the California Lake Fire in 2015 caused an entire fleet of fire retardant aircraft to be grounded by Cal Fire (Templeton, 2015). In 2015 alone, there were eight other separate incidents involving UAS operating inside TFRs created for wildfires (Templeton, 2015). Enforcing the TFR for wildland fire fighting operations is a serious challenge and represents how UAS, if used incorrectly, can be extremely dangerous to other fire fighting aircraft. So what if UASs are used to "provide the right information to the right people at the right time" (Hinkley, Zajkowski, Ambrosia, & Schoenung, 2007).

There are certain benefits to using a UAS for wildland firefighting efforts, even different sizes of UAS with different capabilities. These capabilities rival current manned methods or present new ways of executing wildland fire fighting operations. The ability to provide a 24/7 situational awareness picture is invaluable to incident commanders and their efforts to prepare maps and contingency plans to combat wildland fires (Werner, 2015). The Forest Service is interested in employing UAS for wildfire mapping missions that are currently underserved or where manned aircraft are not practical due to mission duration or missions where personnel could be put at high risk (Hinkley, Zajkowski, Ambrosia, & Schoenung, 2007). In addition, a UAS could rescue wildland fighters in danger, note hotspots for quicker action, observe fires at night (which currently is not being done), assess the effect of the wind on fire line changes, and deliver fire retardant or water where needed to extinguish the wildland fire (Than, 2013 & Werner, 2015). These are just a handful of benefits that UAS can provide to fire services in general but are exclusive to wildland firefighting.



Both small and larger UASs could be used for wildland firefighting, each with its own capabilities and benefits to the overall goal of extinguishing wildland fires and ultimately, preventing undue harm to life or property. "The commercializationf unmanned aerial aircraft is leading to innovative, off-the-shelf tools for incident commanders" (Roberts, 2014). Small UASs would be used for fire surveillance with electro-optical and infrared sensors. They could fly at low altitudes to look for hot-spots, be a communications relay, assist with directing firefighters, provide coverage at night and assist with directing water/fire retardant from manned or UAS platforms (Hinkley, Zajkowski, Ambrosia, & Schoenung, 2007; Austin, 2010 & Roberts, 2013). The ELIMCO’s E300 with FENIX is one fixed wing small UAS example (Roberts, 2013). It has a large payload, can be launched remotely and operated for 1.5 hours up to 27 miles away during the daytime and up to 3 hours and 62 miles away at night (Roberts, 2013). A major disadvantage to this system is the time aloft as it is not very much and the fact that it must be controlled line-of-sight (LOS). In wildland firefighting operations, LOS could be block by terrain and thus some areas might not be accessible due to this limitation. One major benefit to this UAS is the operator interface called planning and monitoring system for forest fire fighting (FENIX), because it lets operator locate and address spots in real-time using a mapping application (Roberts, 2013). The real-time video, coupled with infrared images, are geo-tagged and relayed to a mobile command center (Roberts, 2013). Other smaller UASs like the Insitu ScanEagle might be more appropriate for beyond line of sight missions or to get around ground LOS obstruction limitations with an approved FAA COA. In addition, it can loiter a lot longer (24+ hours) than other smaller UASs that were tested by the Forest Service in a 2007 Small UAS Demonstration and can surpass their requirement for a UAS capable of 4-8 duration (Hinkley, Zajkowski, Ambrosia, & Schoenung, 2007 & Scan Eagle Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, n.d.). It could be a good compromise between medium to large UASs that can loiter for 24 hours or more and a majority of smaller UASs that limited to less than eight to 12 hours (Hinkley, Zajkowski, Ambrosia, & Schoenung, 2007 & Roberts, 2014).


Medium to Larger sized UASs, including helicopters and fixed-wing, could be used in the same capacity as their smaller cousins but could be hampered by smoke or clouds more easily if fire surveillance operations are conducted. They could take the role that manned aircraft have with regard to applying water or fire retardant onto fires. In addition, they could take on new roles such as: rescuing trapped firefighters, delivering supplies or even vehicles to firefighters on the ground. The Unmanned K-MAX multi-mission helicopter is one good example as it offers fire suppression, aerial support and potential crew extraction to reduce risk to ground firefighters and aircrews" (Kershaw, Jones & Kleiman, 2015). The wildland firefighting version is a derivative of the military’s heavy lift version and capable of carrying 3,000 gallons of fire retardant like the Forest Service’s current manned helicopters (Werner, 2015). In addition it is capable of electro-optical and infrared imagery, providing a total payload capacity of 6,000 pounds at sea-level (4,000 pounds at en-route altitude of 15,000 feet) and can fly, take-off and land autonomously or in a remote controlled fashion (Products: KMAX, n.d.; Roberts, 2014 & Werner, 2015). In 2015, the K-MAX successfully demonstrated wildland firefighting operations, including cargo drops, single target water drops and progressive line building with a bucket (Kershaw, Jones & Kleiman, 2015). It represents a dramatic shift in wildland firefighter that has seen manned aircraft for the last 80 years (Kershaw, Jones & Kleiman, 2015).

There have been several uses of medium sized fixed wing UASs that have not been a part of any demonstration but has confirmed that UAS technology is ready to support wildland firefighting operations with fire surveillance. From 2006 to 2009, a NASA MQ-9 "Ikhana" successfully employed its multispectral camera to send maps of the fire area to incident commanders on the ground (Werner, 2015). In 2013, the California National Guard MQ-1B Predator provided electro-optical and infrared full motion video for 20 hours at an altitude of 23,000 feet (Werner, 2015). It demonstrated the ability to pinpoint the hottest areas, identified already scored vegetation and spotted nearby brush that threatened to provide fuel for a wildland fire (Werner, 2015). The main advantage was based on the fact that these UASs remained well above manned air tanker flights altitudes/TFR airspace and still provided detailed imagery or full motion video. This separation allowed both to do their jobs uninterrupted by each other. The MQ-1B and MQ-9 "Ikhana" represented two successful medium sized UAS examples that could operate day or night for fire surveillance.

There are no legal or ethical challenges to date with wildland firefighting as the concept is still relatively new and governmental agencies are the primary agent for this type of operation, coupled with the broadcast of its operations to more than one person, makes it less susceptible to miss use.


　

　


References

Austin, R. (2010). Aerospace Series: Unmanned Aircraft Systems: UAVS Design, Development and Deployment (1). Hoboken, GB: Wiley. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu


FAA releases preliminary cause of S-2T crash. (2014). Fire Aviation: News and Opinion. Retrieved from http://fireaviation.com/2014/10/09/faa-releases-preliminary-cause-of-s-2t-crash/


Hinkley, E.A., Zajkowski, T., Ambrosia, V., & Schoenung, S. (2007) Small UAS Demonstration for Wildfire Surveillance

Kershaw, J., Jones, J., & Kleiman, E. (2015). Interior, U.S. Forest Service Explore Use of Unmanned Aircraft to Improve Firefighter Safety. U.S. Department of Interior: Press Releases. Retrieved from https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-us-forest-service-explore-use-unmanned-aircraft-improve-firefighter-safety


Products: KMAX. n.d. Lockheed Martin. Retrieved from http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/kmax.html


Nix, S. (2016). Wildland Firefighting in Forests. About Education. Retrieved from http://forestry.about.com/od/forestfire/a/firefighting.htm


Roberts, M.R. (2014). 5 Drone technologies for firefighting. Fire Rescue: Fire Products: Communications. Retrieved from http://www.firerescue1.com/fire-products/communications/articles/1867819-5-drone-technologies-for-firefighting/


ScanEagle Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. n.d. Boeing: Technical Specifciations. Retrieved from http://www.boeing.com/history/products/scaneagle-unmanned-aerial-vehicle.page


Templeton, A. (2015). Drones Increasingly Force Firefighting Aircraft to Ground. Retrieved from http://www.opb.org/news/article/private-drones-increasingly-force-firefighting-aircraft-to-the-ground/


Than, K. (2013). New Firefighting Technologies: Drones, Super Shelters. National Geographic. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130702-yarnell-hill-wildfire-firefighting-technology-science/


Werner, C.L. (2015). Using Drones In the Fire Service. Firehouse: Technology and Communications. Retrieved from http://www.firehouse.com/article/12041104/drones-in-the-fire-service


Werner, D. (2015). Fire Drones. Aerospace America Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/Documents/Aerospace%20America%20PDFs%202015/June2015/Feature_FireDrones_AA_June2015-3.pdf


Wildland Fires. (2016). National Fire Protection Association. Retrieved from http://www.nfpa.org/safety-information/for-consumers/outdoors/wildland-fires