Effectiveness of Redundant Communications Systems in Maintaining Operational Control of Small Unmanned Aircraft

NASA has been researching prototype technologies for an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) system to facilitate enabling of safe and efficient civilian low-altitude airspace and UAS operations, in a series of Technical Capability Levels (TCL) activities that are increasingly complex. In TCL1, completed in 2015, visual line-of-sight operations such as agriculture, firefighting and infrastructure monitoring were addressed with a focus on geofencing and operations scheduling. Technologies and requirements needed for beyond visual line-of-sight (BVLOS) operations in sparsely populated areas were examined in TCL2 in 2016, and those for operations over moderately populated areas in TCL3 in 2017 and 2018. TCL4 will build on the earlier TCLs and focus on technologies and requirements for operations in higher-density urban areas for tasks such as news gathering, package delivery and for managing large-scale contingencies. This paper describes a communications test conducted in TCL3 and discusses insights gained from the test. In the test, operators were directed to equip UAS with redundant Command and Control (C2) communications systems, send a maneuver command to Unmanned Aircraft (UA) via the primary system, then verify execution of the sent command. This exercise was repeated with each redundant system. The test was designed to assess effectiveness of redundant C2 systems in maintaining operational control of UA. Several UAS were configured with varying arrangements to achieve redundancy, including two identical radio modems using the same frequency band, WiFi and Long-Term Evolution (LTE) cellular modems, etc. From the test, digital data such as time maneuver command sent, time maneuver verified, etc., were collected. Descriptions of methods to detect loss of C2 communications and contingency steps for such event were collected and assessed. The final paper will include a detailed analysis of the collected data leading to the following insights. First, effectiveness of redundant C2 systems depends on several factors, such as operational environment and communications service availability. For example, use of two identical point-to-point radio to connect operator and UA on the same frequency band can be effective in mitigating radio malfunction when operating in an environment where possibility of Radio Frequency (RF) interference is low, such as over open plains. However, the same arrangement may not be effective where high level of RF transmissions in broad spectrum ranges can be expected, such as over or near urban areas. For redundant systems that consist of external communications services, such as cellular and satellite communications network, redundancy is maintained only in the areas where more than one services are available. Therefore, UAS operators should have the means to plan for and monitor the performance of external communications services they are relying on to control UA. Second, communications performance needs, such as the minimum data transfer rate and the maximum tolerable latency, should be assessed to reflect the potential hazard that can come from loss of UA control. For example, UA operations over desolate area pose less hazard to people than operations over densely populated area and performance need for the former would be less than the latter.