Description / Abstract:
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Introduction
This document contains Phase 1 Minimum Operational Perfomiance Standards (MOPS) for Detect and Avoid (DAA) systems used in Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) transitioning to and from Class A or special use airspace (higher than 500' Above Ground Level (AGL». traversing Class D. E. or G airspace in the National Airspace System (NAS). It does not apply to small UAS (sUAS) operating in low-level environments (below 500") or other segmented areas. Likewise, it does not apply to operations in the Visual Flight Rules (VFR) traffic pattern of an aiiport. These standards specify DAA system characteristics that should be useftil for designers, manufacturers, installers and users of the equipment.
These Phase 1 MOPS focus on Unmanned Aircraft (UA). in order to fly m airspace normally frequented by commercial transport and general aviation aircraft. Aircraft operating in all classes of airspace van- from operation under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) airspace to VFR operations with minimal onboard equipage. The technology needed to detect this range of aircraft as defined in these Phase 1 MOPS at sufficient distance to prevent the nsk of collision may limit the size of the UA in which tins equipment can be integrated. The UAS will need to cany relatively large and lngh-power sensor systems, which could weigh 200 pounds or more. Therefore, these MOPS are unlikely to be applicable to smaller size UAS. but such aircraft are not prohibited from installing equipment that meet the standard and have a need to transit to Class A airspace. Future revisions of this document are expected to address other operational scenanos and sensors better suited to smaller UAS needs, as well as other DAA architectures, including ground-based sensors.
During development of this document members of the committee expressed concern about Equipment Class 1 providing an appropnate level of safety for the in-scope operations. There were also concerns expressed regarding the safety of the system when compared to manned see-and-avoid capability, the usability of the well clear definition, the impacts of replacing “collision avoidance” with a "recover well clear" concept, concerns that a formal safety analysis was not available to guide MOPS development, and concerns that a top level performance requirement was not established to provide a means for requirement traceability to lower level requirements.
To this end. the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is conducting an internal Safety Risk Management Panel to establish the conditions under which Equipment Class 1 or Equipment Class 2 would be sufficient for the intended operations in the NAS. The outcome of this safety analysis will be used to determine required equipage and any necessary operational mitigations. The information will be shared with the committee and any- necessary- changes needed to the standard will be addressed during the Phase 2 effort.
Compliance with these standards is recommended as one means of assuring that the equipment will perform its intended functions) satisfactorily under the conditions specified herein. Any regulator}' application of this document is the sole responsibility of appropriate governmental agencies.]
Introduction
This document contains Phase 1 Minimum Operational Perfomiance Standards (MOPS) for Detect and Avoid (DAA) systems used in Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) transitioning to and from Class A or special use airspace (higher than 500' Above Ground Level (AGL». traversing Class D. E. or G airspace in the National Airspace System (NAS). It does not apply to small UAS (sUAS) operating in low-level environments (below 500") or other segmented areas. Likewise, it does not apply to operations in the Visual Flight Rules (VFR) traffic pattern of an aiiport. These standards specify DAA system characteristics that should be useftil for designers, manufacturers, installers and users of the equipment.
These Phase 1 MOPS focus on Unmanned Aircraft (UA). in order to fly m airspace normally frequented by commercial transport and general aviation aircraft. Aircraft operating in all classes of airspace van- from operation under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) airspace to VFR operations with minimal onboard equipage. The technology needed to detect this range of aircraft as defined in these Phase 1 MOPS at sufficient distance to prevent the nsk of collision may limit the size of the UA in which tins equipment can be integrated. The UAS will need to cany relatively large and lngh-power sensor systems, which could weigh 200 pounds or more. Therefore, these MOPS are unlikely to be applicable to smaller size UAS. but such aircraft are not prohibited from installing equipment that meet the standard and have a need to transit to Class A airspace. Future revisions of this document are expected to address other operational scenanos and sensors better suited to smaller UAS needs, as well as other DAA architectures, including ground-based sensors.
During development of this document members of the committee expressed concern about Equipment Class 1 providing an appropnate level of safety for the in-scope operations. There were also concerns expressed regarding the safety of the system when compared to manned see-and-avoid capability, the usability of the well clear definition, the impacts of replacing “collision avoidance” with a "recover well clear" concept, concerns that a formal safety analysis was not available to guide MOPS development, and concerns that a top level performance requirement was not established to provide a means for requirement traceability to lower level requirements.
To this end. the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is conducting an internal Safety Risk Management Panel to establish the conditions under which Equipment Class 1 or Equipment Class 2 would be sufficient for the intended operations in the NAS. The outcome of this safety analysis will be used to determine required equipage and any necessary operational mitigations. The information will be shared with the committee and any- necessary- changes needed to the standard will be addressed during the Phase 2 effort.
Compliance with these standards is recommended as one means of assuring that the equipment will perform its intended functions) satisfactorily under the conditions specified herein. Any regulator}' application of this document is the sole responsibility of appropriate governmental agencies.]
