UAV Certification

Challenges from
Aerodynamics perspective
 Airworthiness
ICAO Definition:
Airworthy: The status of an aircraft, engine, propeller or part when it
conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe
operation

The basic tenet of airworthiness is that the airborne platforms

are certified by the independent airworthiness regulatory
authorities against well defined criteria to meet the safety
requirements
 CEMILAC – ACTIVITIES SPECTRUM
System Technical Specs. Design
Integration QTP, ATP, S&R Evaluation

Performance S/w IV & V

Evaluation Certification
Mid-life Upgrades
Modifications
Ab-initio Designs
Life
Extension
Deviation
Assessment Production Continued
Failure
Support Airworthiness Analysis

Failure Weapon / Sys

Analysis Systems
Unmanned Integration
Developed
Abroad / BOI Air vehicles
Staff
Requirements Indigenization
Design Conformance /
Qualification Certification
Provisional Type Approval
Approval
Clearances

Approval of
Firms & Test
Houses
 LOCATIONS OF RCMAs
Aircraft (Ab-initio & License Pr)
UAVs
Aircraft Upgrades
Helicopters
Aero Engines
Missiles
Systems and LRUs
Russian Origin Military Aircraft
Transport Aircraft
Materials
Armaments
Evolution of Guiding Document - DDPMAS

DDPMAS Framework & IMTAR-21

DDPMAS-2002
DDPMAS-75

UAS, Air Launched Weapons, Aero Engines, Next Gen

Ab-Initio Design &
Aircraft, Advanced Materials, Payloads & Sensors
Licensed Development
Manufacturing
DPSUs/DRDO with Support Greater Impetus on Role of Private Industry in
HAL Centric of Private Industry Complex System-on-Systems Projects, Defence Exports
 UAV CATEGORISATION

CAT III : UAV operations may be allowed with no

specific operational restrictions

CAT II : UAV operations may be allowed with some

operational restrictions.

CAT I : UAV operations that do not belong two

categories, i.e. conducted within airspace portions and
above confined area
 UAV CERTIFICATION POLICY
Categorisation of UAV
The UAVs can be categorized as follows:
Micro UAV : < 1Kg
Mini UAV : 1 – 10 Kg
Light UAV : >10 Kg & <100 Kg
Heavy UAV : > 100 Kg

a) Certification policy for Mini and Micro UAVs: certification not required.
b) Certification policy for Light and Heavy UAVs:
 For Light UAVs, proposes that it should be left to services whether the
certification required or not.
 For Heavy UAVs, Airworthiness certification is proposed.

Four important classification parameters from operational requirements for certification

Of light UAVs
Classification Altitude <400 ft Range < 500m Kinetic Energy Speed <130 Kmph
parameters < 95 KJ

Implications Collisions in over Uncontrollable Collateral damage in Uncontrollable

flown area populated areas
 Light UAV
It is defined as a UAV used or intended to be used for unmanned
operations in air when

a) Maximum All Up Weight (AUW) should be more than 10 Kg and

less is not more than 100kg.

b) The Operating speed at full power in level flight is less than 130
Kmph IAS

c) At impact, Kinetic Energy is less than 95 KJ in both

unpremeditated descent scenario and loss of control scenario as defined
in para – 4 below.

d) Range of Operation is within 500 meters of UAV pilot/operator

(visual contact)

e) Flown at altitudes not exceeding 122 meters (400 feet) above

the ground level.
 Heavy UAV
It is defined as an UAV used or intended to be used for
unmanned operations in the air when any of the following is satisfied:

a) The maximum AUW is exceeding 100 Kg

b) For Light UAV, if the range and altitude endurance exceeds 500m and
122m (400ft) respectively, will be treated as heavy UAV.

c)Kinetic Energy at impact in any of the scenario i.e. unpremeditated

descend or loss of control is greater than 95 KJ or

d)Operating speed at full power in level flight is greater than 130 Kmph.
Developing airworthiness requirements for UAVs
“the objective of international airworthiness
Standards is to define...... the minimum level of
airworthiness.. .for the recognition...of certificates of
airworthiness... thereby achieving, among other
things, protection of other aircraft, third parties and
property”

Can the existing airworthiness standards for

manned aircraft be adapted to address fully
automated or remotely piloted flight?
 Existing airworthiness standards for manned aircraft
FAR of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Certification Specification (CS) of European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) dominate the worldwide airworthiness standards

CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Part-23 Airworthiness Standards: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category

Airplanes.

Part-25 Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes.

Part-26 Continued Airworthiness and Safety Improvements for Transport Category Airplanes.
(Note: EASA also contains CS-26, but its name is Additional airworthiness specifications
for operations, its initial release was on December 5, 2015.)

Part-27 Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft.

Part-29 Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Rotorcraft.

MILITARY AIRCRAFT

MIL-HDBK-516C

JSSG

EMACC
 Existing airworthiness standards for unmanned aircraft
The European EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency – EASA) – regulations and main
features

Based on French military air authorities best practice of the UAS airworthiness
certification NATO had established own military system of certification of the UAS
airworthiness. By request of the applicants EASA is ready to certify the UAS by the
NATO STANAG 4671

Piloted Flying Qualities Specifications and Standards for Fixed Wing Aircr
 Flying and Handling Qualities
The “handling qualities” or “flying qualities” of an airplane
are a measure of airplane performance relative to its intended
mission and describe how “well” or “poorly” a particular
airplane flies.

MIL-STD-1797A defines what is meant by the term handling

qualities. “Those qualities or characteristics of the aircraft
that govern the ease and precision with which a pilot is able
to perform the tasks required in support of an aircraft role.”
Another definition from the Cooper-Harper Rating Scale
defines handling qualities as “those qualities or
characteristics of an aircraft that govern the ease and
precision with which a pilot is able to perform the tasks
required in support of an aircraft role.
 Handling Qualities for Conventional Aircraft
 Aircraft handling qualities for large, conventional aircraft are typically
determined through careful and extensive flight testing by various pilots.

 Pilot opinion is assessed and quantified using the Cooper-Harper rating

scale, developed in the 1960s by engineers at NASA and Cornell
Aeronautical Laboratory

Flying quality levels are broken down in MIL-F-8785C as follows:

Level 1: Flying qualities clearly adequate for the mission flight phase.

Level 2: Flying qualities adequate to accomplish the mission Flight

Phase, but some increase in pilot workload or degradation in mission
effectiveness, or both exists.

Level 3: Flying qualities such that the airplane can be controlled safely, but
pilot workload is excessive or mission effectiveness is inadequate, or both.
 The Cooper-Harper Handling Qualities Rating Scale. A decision tree used by flight-test
engineers and pilots to turn qualitative opinions of aircraft performance in a quantitative
rating.
Handling Qualities Are Related to the Dynamic Modes
 Military specifications are derived by setting limits on the natural
frequencies, damping ratios and time constants of the various
dynamic modes.

 For Phugoid mode, Level 1 handling qualities require that the

damping ratio be positive so as to eventually cause any oscillation to
die out over time.

 Level 3 Negative damping ratios are tolerated, because they indicate

a tendency to become unstable if uncorrected.

Limits on the damping ratio of the phugoid mode from Military Specification MIL-F-8785C
The short period mode is of far more
importance than the phugoid because it
governs the speed at which changes in angle
of attack affect the flight-path angle
 Dynamic behaviours of manned and unmanned aircraft

 The dynamic behaviours of large and small airplanes are very

similar, but the smaller masses and inertias as well as slower flight
speeds of small UAVs tend toward higher natural frequencies than
conventional aircraft.

 Dynamic scaling (Froude number ) is used to find out the natural

frequency of small UAVs

 This method provides common ratios between inertia-to-gravity

and aerodynamic-to gravity forces for vehicles of different sizes

 Using Dynamic scaling, the frequency of oscillation of various

modes will increase by the square root of the scaling ratio,N,
Froude Number

Froude number (Fr), in hydrology and fluid mechanics, dimensionless quantity

used to indicate the influence of gravity on fluid motion.
 Frequency

𝜔 𝑛, 𝑠𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒=𝜔𝑛, 𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒 √ 𝑁

Moment of Inertia

𝐼 𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒
𝐼 𝑠𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒 = 5
𝑁
Weight

𝑊 𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒
𝑊 𝑠𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒 = 3
𝑁
Critical design parameters for the three airplanes that were studied
Dynamic mode predictions for 3 small UAVs
 Short period mode natural frequency plotted versus span for various large and small airplanes
showing the trend of higher natural frequencies for smaller vehicles
Dutch-roll mode natural frequency plotted versus span for various large and small airplanes
showing the trend of higher natural frequencies for smaller vehicles.
 Handling Qualities Standards for Small UAVs

 The higher natural frequencies of oscillation present in small UAVs compared to

larger planes cause their handling qualities to fall outside the current standards given in
MIL-F-8785C.

 The higher natural frequencies of the short-period mode for small UAVs cause them to
receive a Level 3 handling qualities ratings in most cases

Comparison of the predicted natural frequencies and damping ratios for the oscillatory
modes of motion.
 Rating Handling Qualities for Small UAVs Using
Current Military Standards

The flying qualities of the three small UAVs are determined to be Level 2 and 3 according
to
MIL-F 8785C. The larger planes are shown to fall into the Level 1 range as expected.
New UAV Handling Qualities Standard
Using Dynamic Scaling
Flight Testing to Validate the New Short-Period Standard

Flight Testing to Validate the New Short-Period

Standard
Design Considerations for Longitudinal Handling Qualities
The phugoid mode period averages between 5 and 8 seconds.
While these significantly lower periods are still well within the
reaction time of a capable pilot, an unstable, lightly damped
oscillation can get out of control much faster for a small UAV
than for a large airplane. This need for constant attention to
manage the phugoid mode can become a major annoyance for a
pilot trying to focus on flying a specific mission.

The short period mode natural frequency is within the limits,

but the damping ratio is too low, the plane may be susceptible
to pilot-induced-oscillations (PIO) or other annoying motions.
This can especially be a problem if the frequency of oscillation is
near to the reaction time of the pilot. If the damping ratio is too
high, the airplane will feel sluggish and almost nonresponsive to
pilot inputs.
Challenging in the wind tunnel
testing
and flight data correlation
Wind tunnel data correlation with flight data
of Lear Jet Aircraft
Lift data Comparison
Drag data Comparison
Pitching Moment data Comparison
 Wind tunnel data correlation
With flight data of PC 9/A training Aircraft
 Wind tunnel data correlation
With flight data of HAL HTT-40 training Aircraft
Validation of Data fusion from wind tunnel, CFD and Empirical

VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY
 Entire raw wind tunnel data and the processed ADS data
are obtained from ADE to verify and validate the data.
Importing the necessary data into Excel 2007
 the program written on our own using MATLAB, each
components of the application rule is derived
independently from the raw wind tunnel data and
compared with ADS.
CY Vs Alpha at Beta +10, IBE 0, OBE 0, SP IB 0, SP OB 0
Cl Vs Alpha at Beta +10, IBE 0, OBE 0, SP IB 0, SP OB 0
 Dynamics Tests
VERTICAL SPIN TUNNEL FOR SPIN CHARACTERISTICS AND SPIN RECOVERY
Thank you