REDAC Slides 

P&I UAS and Innovative Technology Discussion 

Wes Ryan – AIR-600 P&I 
 

 

 

 

Using Innovation To Enhance Safety 

• History of finding ways to bring new technology into the National

Airspace System safely 

• GPS, ADS-B, Glass Displays, Envelope Protection, AOA, Small UAS 

• Transformational Flight & Automation Concepts are the Next Logical

Progression/Evolution in Technology/Safety 

• Innovation from UAS will work into Small Aircraft, Future UAM, Part 25 

• Culture in FAA is Shifting to Risk-based Innovation & Safety 

• Must Foster Innovation While Addressing Current Challenges 

• Further UAS Integration GA Fatal Accidents per 100,000 Hours 

• 

• UAM/SVO/EVTOL/ESTOL 

• Use Methodical Approach 

1 

0.9 

• Low risk introduction 1st 0.8 

• Build to Higher Risk Uses 0.7 

0.6 

Greater Automation 1.2 

1.1 

1.1 1.12 

1.09 1.11 1.09 

0.99 

0.89 

0.84 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Year 

FLAT (NO CHANGE) 

Future?

Rate 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Future Vision for Innovation/Safety 

• Integration of UAS Will Mature Key Technology Enablers 

• Application Will Improve Access To Personal Aviation 

• Attract More Pilots – Automation Will Simplify Flight 

• Shared Integration & Future “Traffic Management” 

• UTM Concepts Will Continue To Mature 

• Build to Manage all Trajectories Leveraging UAS Tech 

• Prompt Agility Of Airworthiness/Collaboration 

• Part 23 Rewrite, Industry Standards Development, Others 

• Related R&D Must Quickly Feed Policy: Key Enablers –

Electric Propulsion, 4D Flight Path Control, Automation 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Electric Propulsion 

• Flying Pipistrel Alpha Electro in California 

• Experimental data collection –performing simulated training missions 

• Core lessons learned feeding standards – ASTM & Battery Standards 

• Operational Challenges for a “Pilot of Average Skill” – Suitable for LSA? 

• Energy Management and Indication of Remaining Flight Time (40 min) 

• Collaborating with NASA on X-57 

• Part of NASA Design Reviews, Flight Readiness Reviews, and Tests 

• Participation in ASTM Electric Propulsion Standard

Development/Validation 

• Working with UAS and UAM TC Applicants: 

• Standardized Battery, Motor, Motor Controller Design and Operational

Requirements with Methods of Compliance 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Airspace 

Aircraft 

Airmen 

Flight Controls & Simplified Ops 

• Working R&D for 10+ years to bring affordable

augmented flight path control to GA 

• Modern sensors, actuators, processors enabling

new systems – UAS provide safe prototyping 

• Real Results - Envelope Protection Autopilots –

Certified and in flight for 5+ years 

• Targeting Simplified Vehicle Operations – “Pilot on 

the loop” simplified flight – Reduce pilot error 

• Methodical Buildup from Component to Full

System Level R&D Projects Feeding Policy 

• Yielding Real-World Test Results and MOC 

• AOA, Advanced Autopilots, Full Flight Path 

Management, Resilient Automation, “EZ-Fly”

system being tested at Embry Riddle. 
 

 

 

NASA Collaborations 

• UAM - Grand Challenge 

• Advance Maturity of UAM Aircraft/Applicants 

• Leverage Combined Expertise of NASA, FAA, Industry 

• UAS Integration - SIO – System Integration Operationalization 

• Large UAS Initiative under UAS in NAS program 

• Detect and Avoid and NAS Integration Technology Demonstrations 

• Automation - Resilient Autonomy – DOD, NASA, FAA 

• Prove Specific Architecture Can Safely Automate Critical Tasks 

• Robust Autonomy for UAS and Manned Aircraft 

• Run-time Assurance – Key to Safe Automation With Less Human Invovlement 

• Dynamic Consistency Checks (Avoid Issues like 737 Max) 
Supporting Materials 
 

 

 

 

 

Cyber Security 

• Risk-based Approach to Requirements 

• Exposure of software/system to threats 

• Risk of aircraft to public 

• Systems with no connectivity present lower risk 

• Spoofing of GPS sensors still a potential threat 

• Greater connectivity = greater exposure 

• Requires partitioning of critical systems from exposed system 

• Procedural and strategic mitigations can be as powerful as design aspects 
 

 

 

 

 

Safety From Experience in Innovation 

• Using a well-proven risk-based approach to safety 

• Balance FAA Rigor vs. Safety Improvement – Drives cost, time for project 

• UAS Certification and our targeted R&D to drive policy to technology 

benefit all aviation –Urban Mobility and Retrofit/Fwd-fit 

• Traditional Certification has primary/secondary, or primary/backup

mentality, with human as the safety net – Need New Proven Approach 

New & Novel Commonplace 

Technical Maturity &

Acceptance

. Mass Usage 

. Widespread 

Development Acceptance 

. .Initial Use 

Time 

*Abernathy, W.J. and Utterback, J.M. – Patterns of Innovation in Technology, Technology Review 1978 
Gov, Industry + Market Driven Evolution POLICY ENABLES Tech Transfer 

Future eVTOL Safety & Technology 

UAS Safety & Technology 

GA Safety & Technology 

Low Cost 

Technology 

Enablers, 

UAS 

Technology 

Enablers, 

Forward 

Fit EVTOL 

Commercial Aircraft Technology 

= Tech 

Transfer 

xx

xx

xx

Key: xx

= Critical R&D 

Policy Change 

xx
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ongoing Research Threads 

Flight Profiler Project 

Advisory Circular for AFCS based 

on Performance Specs 

Flt. Test Scale Model to Conduct 

Mock Cert. using RTA –, NASA 

AGCAS & RTA Prioritization 

Projects 

eVTOL & AFPC MOC Project 

Augmented 

Flight Path 

Controller 

Nz 

Protection 

Speed 

Protection 

Bank 

Angle 

Protection 

GCAS 

ACAS 

Weather 

Avoidance 

AOA 

Protection 

Run Time Assurance 

PVI 

EZFly FBW Project 

DA-42 FBW VSS Project 

GA AFCS MOCs Project – 

AOA Displays Project – FAA/CAMI 

Low-Cost AOA Feedback Project 

Low-Cost Stick Shaker Project 

Adaptive Controllers & Autopilot 

Streamlining Projects 

Energy Management Displays 
 

Research for Policy Development 

• Research Projects can be started early focusing on Tech 

- Before applicants apply 

• Get Empirical Data to Support Means of Compliance (MOC) - Develop first draft of guidance 

- Provide feedback to Industry Stds Committees 

• Many advanced VTOL concepts are highly integrated 

- Blend Propulsion, Flight Controls , Autonomy 

• Research And Policy Integration Team (RAPIT)

Standards Staffs: 

• Rotorcraft 

• Engine/Propeller 

• Small Airplane 

• Transport 
 

 

 

Our Shared Challenge for Automation 

• Discuss Ways to Purposefully/Safely Move from

Concept, to Design, to Operation & Integration of

Pilotless, Passenger Carrying Aircraft 

• We have the means for conceptual design and sub-scale or 

full-scale development in flight test of prototypes, BUT 

• We do not have requirements for pilot/automation 

performance for “autonomous” operations, or automated 

integration with air traffic 

Concept Development Operation 
 

 

 

Workload/Integrity of Function

Human 

Function 

Time 

Automation 

Function 

Pilot 

Mitigates 

Risk 

Automation 

Mitigates 

Risk 

Velocity of Change 

Current 

Systems 

Future 

Systems 

Reduced Pilot Error/Operational Error 

Challenge - Humans/Machines Safely Trading Roles 

Future Safety Gain? 

• Automation 

Replacing Humans 

• Automation May do 

More Than Human 

Capability 

• What Will Residual 

Future Roles Be? 

Human as Safety Monitor 
 

 

 

 

 

Is Evolution or Revolution the Right Methodology ? 

• Some are Convinced they can jump straight to full automation without a human 

pilot in the loop “flying” the aircraft. 

• Others recognize the challenge of replacing the pilot on board with an automated 

system that is reliable enough to handle all actions typically done by the pilot and 

the controller for all phases of flight. 

Low Risk to High Risk (Safety Risk, Financial, Time, Certification, etc.) 
 

 

Automation Certification Path 

• Logically reduce/replace functions of pilot/controller 

– Deconstruct functions of the pilot and controller to design functions 

into automation 

• Developing “Assured” Automation 

– Bounded Behavior – Safe limitations of authority 

– Expected outcomes – architecture is key – human intention is built in 

by bounded behavior 

– Fault Tolerant, Fail-Safe – Continue to function after a failure 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deconstruction of Intended Tasks/Functions 

• Concentrate on major functions 

– Pilot: 

• Aviate – Flight Path Management of the aircraft states – flying the aircraft 

• Navigate – Flight Path Management of the flight path in national airspace – telling it 

where to go 

• Communicate – Flight Path Management in context of other aircraft and air traffic 

expectations 

– Controllers: 

• Locate – Is the aircraft where it is supposed to be? 

• Separate – Is the aircraft avoiding others? 

• Communicate – Can Air Traffic “talk to the airplane” to manage its course? 

• Assess Readiness of automation to perform each set of functions – Air 

and Ground Operations 
Deconstruction of Pilot/Controller Functions 
Piloted vs. Pilotless – Must Design in Functions For All Phases of Flight 
 

 

 

 

 

Keys To “ Trusted” Automation 

• Modular Architecture 

– Top down architecture hierarchy with clearly specified 

interfaces 

• Partitioned Functions & Criticality 

– Software/Hardware Isolation 

– Each module limited to a single safety function – Ease of 

Testing 

• Dynamic Consistency Checks 

– Compare Derived and Measured Parameters 

– Measure real time behavior of the system 

• Computational Agility 

– Rapid assessment of system/situational hazards with quick 

and decisive response to those hazards 
 

 

 

 

 

Proposed NASA & FAA Process Relationship for Challenge 

Grand Challenge “Scenario Roadmap” Rosetta Stone 

NASA Data, Lessons Learned, SME Expertise 

Basic Design Certification Operational Approval 

Airworthiness 

Operational 

Suitability 

Design Readiness Design Robustness 

NASA 7900.3D 

CH1 

FAA Order 

8130.34D 

NASA 7900.3D 

CH2 

FAA Order 

8110.4C 

Aircraft 

Evaluation 

Group 

NASA 7900.3D 

CH3 & 4 

NASA 

FAA 

Type 

Certification & 

Operational 

Readiness 

Outcome: Identify Design 

Issues, Airworthiness 

Requirements, Means of 

Validating Design + 

Performance (ie. Subpart B) 

Outcome: Identify 

Operational/Performance 

Issues, Pilot Training 

Requirements, Suitability for 

Real World Use 

Outcome: 

Determination of 

Condition for Safe 

Flight – “Crew Rated” 
 

 

 

FAA Steps for Certification 

Conceptual 

Design 

• Process Orientation 

• Pre-Project 

Guidance 

• Familiarization 

Briefing 

• Top Level Safety 

Requirement 

• Potential Policy 

Items to Address 

• Airspace 

Integration 

Challenges 

Requirements 

Definition 

• UAS Conceptual 

Design* 

• CONOP* 

• Risk Classification* 

• Certification Plan* 

• Conformity 

Inspection Plan 

• Preliminary TCBM 

• ORA* 

• Proposed 

Certification Basis * 

• Acceptable Means 

of Compliance 

• Detailed Method of 

Compliance 

Compliance 

Planning 

• FAA Involvement 

• Applicant’s 

Responsibility 

• Oversight and 

Delegation* 

• Conformity 

• Interim TCBM 

• ATO/AFS 

Coordination* 

• Compliance Data 

Generation 

• Compliance 

Substantiation 

• Compliance Finding 

Implementation Post Certification 

Activities 

• Type Inspection 

Report 

• Data Retention 

• Required 

Documents at 

Delivery 

• TC Holder Info 

• Continued 

Airworthiness 

• ICA Changes 

• Post Certification 

Evaluation 

Red Items = Steps Where NASA Resilient Autonomy Will Focus 

* Denotes items that are specific to UAS Type Certification, or items that 

are tailored for UAS certification 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Conceptual 

Design 

Safety Assessment(SRP4761) 

Identify aircraft level functions to be 

certificated (included piloted and/or 

autonomous) 

Decompose Aircraft level functions into 

system item functions. 

Identify system safety requirements 

Apply JARUS SORA 

Guidance 

Production Concept: 

Aircraft, CONOP 

(AC 21.17 Section 10) 

Aircraft/System(s) 

Function 

Development 

Development of 

System(s) 

Architecture 

System(s) 

Implementation 

Implementation 

& 

Verification 

Design and Development 

Task at Hand 

Decompose 

Aviate, Navigate, 

and communicate 

Apply one or the other 

Can this be met under current 

14 CFR Rules 

Software & Hardware 

Conceptual 

Design 

Requirements 

Definition 

Compliance 

Planning Implementation Post Certification 

Activities 
 

 

 

 

Mission Task Elements 

• Identify what the aircraft is 

going to do (Concept of

operation/mission) and break

into mission elements 

• Identify tasks automation is 

intended to do for each mission 

element 

• Identify expected behavior and

pass/fail criteria for the 

automated functions 

1 

2 

3 5 

4 

6 

7 

Task Description Behavior Pass/Fail MOC 

1.a Pre-flight Condition for 

Safe Flt 

Configuration Insp 

• Create mission task element 1.b Built In Test System Ready Sys Parameter Test 

testing procedures to Limits 

validate/verify proper function 1.c Flight Plan Flt Route As Intended Test 

and behavior 

........ 
 

Grand Challenge Mission Task Elements 

Creating Standard Test Procedures, 

Maneuvers 

• Design Basic Airworthiness 

• Design Robustness 

• Operational Readiness 

• GAMA Publication 16 Mission Profile 

Goal: Tests and Methods of Compliance 

for Unique Aircraft Not Currently Covered 

by our Rules. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notional Steps for Certification of Automation 

• Identify the aircraft, its intended use, and area of operation 

• Identify the functions that are expected to be automated without human backup 

• Evaluate risks and severity of those risks based on that CONOP (What if document) (SORA) 

• Evaluate mitigations for those risks and whether they are by design, operational limitation, or 

geographic/airspace limitation 

• Evaluate the integrity/assurance needed for the risk mitigations that are by design 

• Create certification requirements for the design aspects, and pass fail for those requirements for showing 

compliance 

• Identify functions, definition of expected performance of that function, pass/fail evaluation criteria for the 

function, and a means to test that functionality to verify reliability, accuracy, availability, and what happens 

if it fails. (contingencies without human intervention) 

• From pass/fail and expected performance for function/design features, identify cert/safety requirement 

and means to test to show it has been met. 

• Collect data, and demonstrate compliance by test, inspection, analysis