1、Designation: F3178 16Standard Practice forOperational Risk Assessment of Small Unmanned AircraftSystems (sUAS)1This standard is issued under the fixed designation F3178; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of l
2、ast revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon () indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.INTRODUCTIONAn operational risk assessment (ORA) offers to an applicant of small unmanned aircraft systems(sUAS) a standardized app
3、roach to examine their operations for potential hazards and assess thosehazards for risk. The ORA is then used to mitigate or avoid risks associated with those hazards toachieve acceptable levels of safety. ORA is a key component of operational risk management (ORM),which seeks to identify hazards e
4、ndemic to an operation, assign risks to those hazards based onquantitative and qualitative analysis, and mitigate unacceptable levels of risk. The main functions ofthe ORM are to: (1) Minimize risk to acceptable levels while providing a method to manage resourceseffectively; (2) Enhance decision-mak
5、ing skills based on systematic, reasoned, and repeatableprocesses; (3) Provide systematic structure to perform risk assessments; (4) Provide an adaptiveprocess for continuous feedback through planning, preparation, and execution; and (5) Identifyfeasible and effective control measures, particularly
6、where specific standards do not exist.Through a risk-based approach to operations, design, and airworthiness, an applicant can quicklyunderstand the operational environment and threats to the operation. The ORA offers a methodologyto identify system and operational hazards, apply quantitative and qu
7、alitative analysis to those hazards,analyze the outputs of the ORA, and then apply appropriate mitigations to satisfy safety of flightrequirements.The ORA is an integral component of any sUAS application and is an important tool for gainingaccess to the national airspace, or especially into increasi
8、ngly higher risk environments, such ascontrolled airspace where other manned aircraft are likely to be present.1. Scope1.1 This practice focuses on preparing operational riskassessments (ORAs) to be used for supporting small unmannedaircraft systems (sUAS) (aircraft under 55 lb (25 kg) design,airwor
9、thiness, and subsequent operational applications to thecivil aviation authority (CAA).1.2 It is expected that manufacturers and developers oflarger/higher energy sUAS designs, intended to operate incontrolled airspace over populated areas, will adopt many ofthe existing manned aircraft standards in
10、use. These includestandards such as SAE ARP4754A and ARP4761, whichprescribe a “design for safety” top-down design approach toensure the sUAS designs can reasonably meet more stringentqualitative and quantitative safety requirements. The ORA,however, remains the same for all risk profiles and will b
11、e apart of any sUAS operation.1.3 In mitigating and preventing incidents and accidents, itis understood that people generally do not seek to causedamage or injure others, and therefore, malicious acts arebeyond the scope of this practice.1.4 As part of the ORA, the applicant should clearlyunderstand
12、 and be able to articulate their intended mission forpurposes of assessing safety and providing information toregulators. This documentation of a sUAS operation (mission,or set of missions) is what many refer to as a concept ofoperations (CONOPS).1.5 This practice is intended primarily for sUAS appl
13、icantsseeking approval or certification for airworthiness or opera-tions from their respective CAA, though sUAS manufacturersmay consider this practice, along with other system safety1This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee F38 on UnmannedAircraft Systems and is the direct responsi
14、bility of Subcommittee F38.02 on FlightOperations.Current edition approved Nov. 1, 2016. Published January 2017. DOI: 10.1520/F3178-16.Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United StatesThis international standard was developed in accorda
15、nce with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for theDevelopment of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.1design standards, as appropriate t
16、o identify sUAS design andoperational requirements needed to mitigate hazards.1.6 UnitsThe values stated in inch-pound units are to beregarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses aremathematical conversions to SI units that are provided forinformation only and are not considered standar
17、d.1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of thesafety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is theresponsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.2. Referenced
18、 Documents2.1 SAE Standards:2ARP4754A Guidelines for Development of Civil Aircraftand SystemsARP4761 Guidelines and Methods for Conducting theSafetyAssessment Process on CivilAirborne Systems andEquipment3. Terminology3.1 Definitions:3.1.1 airworthiness, ncondition in which the small un-manned aircr
19、aft systems (sUAS) (including the aircraft,airframe, engine, propeller, accessories, appliances, firmware,software, and control station elements) conforms to its designintent, including as defined by the type certificate (TC), ifapplicable, and is in condition for safe operation.3.1.2 applicant, nma
20、y be one of the following entities:3.1.2.1 manufacturer, nsUAS manufacturer that makeschanges to the design of an sUAS with a civil aviationauthority (CAA) airworthiness approval or kinds of flightoperations or both not specifically allowed in the originalairworthiness approval. A manufacturer may a
21、lso be an opera-tor.3.1.2.2 operator, nentity that applies for CAA approval tooperate an sUAS with a CAA airworthiness approval foralready approved flight operations or who seeks operationalapproval for additional kinds of flight operations not presentlyallowed under that airworthiness approval. If
22、this entity pro-poses to operate sUAS for additional kinds of flight operations,then the entity shall use normal CAA processes to obtainairworthiness or operational approval or both for the additionalkinds of flight operations. This entity can be the originalequipment manufacturer (OEM), a manufactu
23、rer, or an entitythat proposes to operate an sUAS procured from an OEM or amanufacturer.3.1.2.3 original equipment manufacturer, OEM, nsUASmanufacturer for the original airworthiness approval of aspecific sUAS design and kinds of flight operations and anOEM may also be an operator.3.1.3 beyond visua
24、l line of sight, BVLOS, noperationwhen the individuals (for example, remote pilot in command(RPIC) or visual observer (VO) responsible for controlling theflight of the small unmanned aircraft (sUA) cannot maintaindirect visual contact with the sUA unaided other than bycorrective lenses (spectacles o
25、r contact lenses) or sunglasses orboth.3.1.3.1 DiscussionTechnological means may be used fordetermining the sUAs movement relative to intruding aircraft,obstacles, and terrain; observe the airspace for other air trafficor hazards; and determine that the sUA does not endanger thelife or property of a
26、nother.3.1.4 concept of operations, CONOPS, nuser-orienteddocument that describes systems characteristics and limitationsfor a proposed system and its operation from a users perspec-tive.3.1.4.1 DiscussionA CONOPS also describes the userorganization, mission, and objectives from an integrated sys-te
27、ms point of view and is used to communicate overallquantitative and qualitative system characteristics and opera-tional procedures to stakeholders.3.1.5 control station, CS, ninterface used by the remotepilot or the person manipulating the controls to control theflight path of the sUA.3.1.6 extended
28、 visual line of sight, EVLOS, noperationwhen the sUA cannot be seen by the individual responsible forsee and avoid with vision that is unaided by any device otherthan corrective lenses or sunglasses or both and where thelocation of the sUA is known through technological means;however, the individual
29、 responsible for see and avoid shall beable to see intruding aircraft with vision unaided by any deviceother than corrective lenses or sunglasses or both so that thesUA can be maneuvered clear of collision with other aircraft,terrain, or obstacles, or combinations thereof.3.1.6.1 DiscussionEither th
30、e remote pilot in command(RPIC) or, alternatively, the visual observer (VO) can use saidtechnological means for determining the location of the sUA todetermine its movement relative to intruding aircraft, obstacles,and terrain; observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards;and determine that
31、 the sUA does not endanger the life orproperty of another.3.1.7 fly-away, nunintended flight outside of operationalboundaries (altitude/airspeed/lateral) as the result of a failure ofthe control element or onboard systems or both.3.1.8 hazard, npotentially unsafe condition resulting fromfailures, ma
32、lfunctions, external events, errors, or combinationsthereof and this term is intended for single malfunctions or lossof function that are considered foreseeable based on either pastservice experience or analysis with similar components incomparable manned aircraft applications or both.3.1.9 likeliho
33、od, nestimated probability or frequency, inquantitative and qualitative terms, of a hazards effect oroutcome.3.1.10 non-participant, nany individual in the vicinity ofa sUAS operation who is not participating in the operation ofthe sUAS.3.1.11 operational risk assessment, ORA, nengineeringevaluation
34、 of the proposed design and operation of the sUAS,2Available from SAE International (SAE), 400 Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale,PA 15096, http:/www.sae.org.F3178 162its intended mission, and proposed area of operation todetermine potential risk to persons and property and identifymitigation strategies t
35、o reduce that potential risk reasonablythrough operating procedures or limitations.3.1.12 operational risk management, ORM, ncontinual,cyclic, process and the evaluation of the effectiveness of thosecontrols, which includes risk assessment, risk decision making,and implementation of risk controls, t
36、hat results in acceptance,mitigation, or avoidance of risk.3.1.13 pilot, nperson other than the RPIC who is control-ling the flight of a sUAS under the supervision of the RPIC.3.1.14 qualitative, adjthose analytical processes that ap-ply mathematical or numerically based methods to assess thesystem
37、and airplane safety.3.1.15 radio line of sight, RLOS, noperational state inwhich radio communications are over distances where the pathbetween the transmitter and receiver is not obstructed by thecurvature of the earth or other obstructions such as terrain orstructures.3.1.16 reliability, ndetermine
38、 that a system, subsystem,unit, or part will perform its intended function for a specifiedinterval under certain operational and environmental condi-tions.3.1.17 remote pilot-in-command, RPIC, nperson who isdirectly responsible for and is the final authority as to theoperation of the sUAS; has been
39、designated as remote pilot incommand before or during the flight of an sUAS; and holds theappropriate CAA certificate for the conduct of the flight.3.1.18 residual risk, nany risk that remains after mitiga-tion or other control actions.3.1.18.1 DiscussionResidual risk is usually accepted if itis wit
40、hin the risk tolerance of the applicant or CAA or both.3.1.19 risk, ncomposite of predicted severity and likeli-hood of the potential effect of hazards.3.1.20 risk mitigations, nmeans to reduce the risk of ahazard.3.1.21 safety risk, SR, nprojected likelihood and severityof the consequences or outco
41、mes from an existing hazard orsituation.3.1.21.1 DiscussionThe outcome may be an accident oran “intermediate unsafe event/consequence” may be identifiedas the “worst credible outcome.”3.1.22 severity, nconsequence or impact of a hazardseffect or outcome in terms of degree of loss or harm.3.1.23 shal
42、l versus should versus may, vuse of the word“shall” implies that a procedure or statement is mandatory andmust be followed to comply with this practice, “should”implies recommended, and “may” implies optional at thediscretion of the applicant.3.1.23.1 DiscussionSince “shall” statements arerequiremen
43、ts, they include sufficient detail needed to definecompliance (for example, threshold values, test methods,oversight, and reference to other standards). “Should” state-ments are provided as guidance towards the overall goal ofimproving safety and could include only subjective statements.“Should” sta
44、tements also represent parameters that could beused in safety evaluations and could lead to development offuture requirements. “May” statements are provided to clarifyacceptability of a specific item or practice and offer options forsatisfying requirements.3.1.24 small unmanned aircraft, sUA, nunman
45、ned aircraftweighing less than 55 lb (25 kg) on takeoff, including every-thing that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft.3.1.25 small unmanned aircraft system, sUAS, nsmallunmanned aircraft (under 55 lb (25 kg) and its associatedelements (including communication links and the components
46、that control the sUA) that are required for the safe and efficientoperation of the sUA in a national airspace system.3.1.26 unmanned aircraft system, UAS, nunmanned air-craft and associated elements (including communication linksand the components that control the unmanned aircraft) that arerequired
47、 for the RPIC to operate safely and efficiently in anational airspace system.3.1.27 visual line of sight, VLOS, nwith vision that isunaided other than by corrective lenses or sunglasses or both,the pilot or visual observer shall be able to see the sUAthroughout the entire flight to determine its mov
48、ement relativeto intruding aircraft, obstacles, and terrain; observe the airspacefor other air traffic or hazards; and determine that the sUAdoesnot endanger the life or property of another.3.1.28 visual observer, VO, nperson who is designated bythe RPIC to assist the RPIC and the person manipulatin
49、g theflight controls of the sUAS to see and avoid other air traffic orobjects aloft or on the ground.4. Summary of Practice4.1 This practice is intended to provide an understanding ofthe risk assessment process as a baseline standard for appli-cants of sUAS designs and operations covered under the“small” designation of a CAAkinetic energy spectrum and thatare not generally designed with the rigorous design assurancestandards that exist in more complex unmanned aircraft withhigher kinetic energy characteristics.4.2 It is expected that manufac
