Sunday, September 20, 2015


Perimeter Security
Greg Laxton
ASCI 530 – Unmanned Aerospace Systems
Research: UAS Mission
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University-Worldwide
19 September 2015

      A specific mission suited to UAS the perimeter security around very high value installations, such as nuclear facilities. The mission would involve visual and infrared (IR) surveillance beyond line of sight (LOS). This would augment stationary cameras and give security an overhead view of possible threats. A UAS could fly at sufficient altitude to give facility security personnel a clear day and night view of activity within a specified radius of the high value installation.
 
     Mission requirements would influence the design and include IR and visual video feed, all weather capability and sufficient endurance. Several existing UAS would meet the design requirements for this role. Three examples of platforms capable of this mission are the Insitu ScanEagle ("Commercial unmanned solutions," n.d.), the AeroVironment Puma ("Puma," n.d.) and the Aeryon SkyRanger ("Aeryon SkyRanger," n.d.). These three examples have a range of capabilities and each could complete the hypothetical missions, but there are numerous other options on the market for aerial surveillance platforms.
 
     The ScanEagle is a proven, long endurance, persistent observation platform. It could offer the perimeter security more than 24 hours of continuous IR and video surveillance to a ground control station (GCS) ("Commercial unmanned solutions," n.d.). Its launch and recovery system requires a dedicated support vehicle, but the UAS does not need a runway for operations. It is the highest cost of the three options at several million dollars for the system ("USAF Factsheet," 2007). The second option is the AeroVironment Puma. It is a much smaller, hand launched, electric powered UAS with a conventional airplane configuration. It has a maximum endurance of 3.5 hours ("Puma," n.d.), according to company specifications. For this application, it would require several platforms to provide the continuous observation of the larger ScanEagle. The third proposed UAS is the Aeryon SkyRanger. This is a self-launched, electric powered quad-copter capable of approximately 50 minutes of endurance ("Aeryon SkyRanger," n.d.). All three vehicles have video and IR capability and can observe potential threats outside of the high value facility.
 
     The benefits of using a UAS for a perimeter protection role, is the observation point provided by an airborne platform. The view from above and the capability to focus the UAS on suspect areas, increases security offered from fixed observation posts. Adding a real time video and IR function, should allow security personnel to see thermal objects in very low light and transmit the images to an observer. The ease of launch and recovery, and the endurance of each proposed UAS would be determined by the end user and the budget available.
 
     The challenges of this design are the system costs and operator training. Set up costs could be significant for the organization, especially with the sophisticated ScanEagle, and all the platforms require some level of operator training.
 
     Ethical and legal challenges could be problematic; especially if the high value installation uses the UA to observe activity far from the facility. The neighboring homeowners, if in the United States (US), have a fourth amendment right to privacy (“Find”, 2012). Simply observing adjacent private property with conventional camera technology will probably not be illegal, but higher technology not available to the general public, like thermal imaging, will probably run afoul of the fourth amendment. In California vs. Ciraolo, the court held that “The Fourth Amendment was not violated by the naked-eye aerial observation of respondent's backyard” ("California v. Ciraolo," 1986). This ruling concerned law enforcements’ observation of backyard marijuana growing from an airplane. It may not exactly apply to security observation from an unmanned aircraft because the operator is not law enforcement, but the homeowner’s privacy concerns are still valid.
 
     Another legal challenge to this idea may be the loss of airspace above the installation. If the more sophisticated platforms, like the ScanEagle, are used in this role, the airspace would have to be closed to other users. This could easily generate complaints to the FAA if UAS are increasingly used in this role, especially if larger and larger areas of local airspace are cordoned off for “security” concerns.
 
 
 
References

Aeryon SkyRanger. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://aeryon.com/wpp/wp-content/files/brochures/Aeryon-SkyRanger-Brochure.pdf

California v. Ciraolo. (1986, May 19). Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/207/case.html

Commercial unmanned solutions. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.insitu.com/missions/commercial

FAA. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.faa.gov/uas/public_operations/

Finn, R. L., & Wright, D. (2012). Unmanned aircraft systems: Surveillance, ethics and privacy in civil applications. Computer Law & Security Review, 28(2), 184-194.

Puma. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.avinc.com/downloads/DS_Puma_Online_10112013.pdf

Raven. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.avinc.com/downloads/Raven_Gimbal.pdf

USAF Factsheet. (2007, November 1). Retrieved from http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104532/scan-eagle.aspx

No comments:

Post a Comment