Sustainable Urban Drone Operations: FF2020 view

Experts worldwide agree that development of operations of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS, commonly known as drones) above populated areas, to remain socially acceptable, must satisfy a set of crucial criteria: safety, security, environmental sustainability (including noise and pollution reduction) and compliance with legal requirements (encompassing liability, privacy and alignment with urban land use regulations). However, for both commercial organisations and entities carrying flights in the public interest, these operations need to also be economically sustainable. This article considers two illustrative scenarios: (1) the urgent transport of medical equipment (e.g., defibrillators) on an ad-hoc basis, precisely when and where required, rather than on a routine schedule; (2) security or plant safety applications, where a drone remains on standby, recharging its batteries in a designated ‘nest,’ ready to take-off for capturing imagery or sensory data when triggered by security personnel or by automatic alerts (e.g., a camera detecting an individual penetrating a perimeter). Deploying one remote pilot for each ‘sleeping’ drone 24/7 would lead to enormous service costs, difficult to be sustained by any organisation. The drone hence needs to be completely autonomous, meaning that a remote pilot would no longer be necessary. The concept, often referred to as ‘Drones in the Box,’ is technically feasible and currently exists. Organisation of the operations, however, goes beyond technical feasibility. According to the Automation Concept by the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS), this falls under level 5 of automation. In this highest level, there is neither involvement of a remote pilot in aircraft flight functions, both on the ground and in the air, nor any human awareness of dynamic operational parameters. In essence, to ensure economic sustainability, the 24/7 operations must entirely eliminate the need for remote pilots. Nonetheless, a UAS operator would still exist as the legal entity responsible for organising and overseeing operations, securing necessary approvals and being accountable for the process. Therefore, a professional job profile would still be necessary, to possibly trigger the flight, receive the collected information and act upon or activate the Emergency Response Plan (ERP) when required. This professional would neither need to be trained nor licenced as Remote Pilot but the position should be 24/7. In scenarios such as the two mentioned examples, security personnel may already be on duty 24/7 to safeguard certain facilities (e.g., hospitals) or provide emergency medical services (e.g., 118 in Italy). These operations could thus become economically viable if these personnel were trained by the operator for this on-demand duty. The Flying Forward 2020 (FF2020) project has coined this role as the ‘Fleet Manager’ and intends to standardise it through ISO (International Organisation for Standardisation), for global harmonisation.


Introduction
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), generally called drones, are rapidly reshaping the way we think about urban transportation, logistics and accessibility, promising to redefine our cities and skies.From logistics and healthcare to public safety and infrastructure management, the applications of drones in urban environments are rapidly expanding, bringing to an era of Urban Air Mobility (UAM) that promises to redefine our cities.This article focuses on the economic sustainability of drone operations in urban environment, an outcome of the project Flying Forward 2020 (FF2020).This project is a threeyear research and innovation project founded by the European Union under the Horizon 2020 programme.The aim of the project is the incorporation of Urban Air Mobility (UAM) within the geospatial digital infrastructure of cities.It focuses also on the integration of UAM into the legal and regulatory framework and in enabling a geospatial digital infrastructure.Moreover, it includes a Digital Toolbox, an Identity of Things (IDoT) scheme and interoperability frameworks [1].
Integrating the use of drones in urban environment is not an easy task because several challenges must be faced.Indeed, to be socially accepted, drone operations need to ensure safety and security first, but also environmental compatibility and general compliance with law.For example, the first source of nuisance for people is the noise produced the drone propellers.Beyond asocial acceptability, the main issue for the business case is however that the efforts required to overcome these limitations are costly, with the connected risk of making the operations not economically sustainable.
According to the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), drones operations can be classified in different domains (Figure 1), starting from the Innovative Aerial Services (IAS) which are defined as "the set of operations and/or services that are of benefit to the citizens and to the aviation market and that are enabled by new airborne technologies.The operations and/or services include both the transportation of passengers and/or cargo and aerial work specialised operations (e.g.surveillance, inspections, mapping, telecommunications networking, etc.)" [2].The latter, together with Innovative Air Mobility (IAM or Advanced Air Mobility, AAM), represent two subcategories of IAS.In particular, IAM (alias AAM) is defined as "the safe, secure and sustainable air mobility of passengers and cargo enabled by new-generation technologies integrated into a multimodal transportation system" [2].Moreover, IAM can be divided into international services, regional services and Urban Air Mobility (UAM) which is "the subset of IAM operations conducted in to, within or out of urban environments".In particular, the topics analysed in the project FF2020 can be collocated in the UAM category.In the context of smart city applications and urban environments, the primary objective of deploying drones is to offer rapid and energy-efficient service delivery while ensuring timely responses.This involves harnessing an edge computing layer to process and store the data gathered by these drones within a smart city infrastructure [3].The implementation of new mobility technologies and services holds the potential to address various transportation-related challenges, including pollution reduction, alleviating traffic congestion, enhancing the overall travel experience, and resolving first-and last-mile connectivity issues [4].A solution is represented for example by truck deliveries supplemented by drones, studied in detail assessing also its economic viability [5].In this context project FF2020 has identified the need for a new job position: the Fleet Manager (FM).This job position can obviate the role of the Remote Pilot (RP) when drone operations are completely autonomous.Thanks to the advanced automation level of the system, the tasks required for humans become in fact quite simple and requiring little effort; thus, there is no need to have a RP but it is sufficient to train people to do some simple actions to cooperate with the drone.In this way, drone operations can be economically sustainable, especially the ones that require the availability of the drone 24/7 but are seldom activated.The idea of substituting the RP with a FM is a step forward in the economical sustainability of the operation and therefore in the development of drone operations in urban cities.
The following of this article is organised as follows: in Section 2 the job of the FM is introduced in comparison to the RP and two examples are summarised.Then, in Section 3 the new job position of the FM is described in detail and also her/his tasks are defined.In Section 4 the Automation Concept by JARUS [6] is presented, with a detailed description of each Level of Automation.In Section 5 the ISO current and possible future standards are presented.Finally, in Section 6 the conclusions are drawn.

Remote Pilot vs Fleet Manager
In recent years, the advancement of new technologies in the drone sector has enabled the development of automated operations managed by the RP, leading to a gradual increase in the degree of automation in UAS operation.Particularly, with the significant development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, the level of automation in UAS operations has risen.An example is represented by the contribution of KOSM to the project FF2020.KOSM is an AI operating system that was developed by VERSES, a cognitive computing company specialising in next-generation AI.The main objective of the KOSM operating system is to fill the gap between digital and physical systems optimising warehouse logistics, automating drone inspection flights and making compliance with limitation and conditions applicable to a certain flight in a given airspace automatic.For example, KOSM allows for compliant autonomous behaviour of UAS over urban areas, creating the optimal flight path for the drone, taking into account geofenced UAS zones, waypoints planning, dynamic routing, flight corridors dedicated to UA, weather conditions, physical obstacles, flying credentials and administrative procedures [7].This innovative system can reduce the tasks needed for a drone flight and can represent the level of automation that enables to obviate the need for a RP, being a less qualified FM sufficient.Thanks to the autonomous behaviour provided by the system, the FM would be able to oversee the drone mission and its outcome, by executing just few simple tasks.
Operations, therefore, tend towards a higher level of automation.In this context, the role of the FM becomes essential.This role completely replaces the role of the RP when the level of automation is very high (Level 5 as defined by JARUS), since human active participation is not required to govern the flight trajectory or to respond to contingencies.Most tasks are in fact performed by machines.Moreover, hiring a RP is not always economically sustainable, especially for operation services that must be available 24/7, but are activated very seldom.The main differences between the tasks under the responsibility of the RP and those of the FM are presented in following table (Table 1):

OPERATION WITH REMOTE PILOT OPERATIONS WITH FLEET MANAGER
The Remote Pilot (RP) manually flies the drone or controls the automatic flight and is ready to take control in case of emergency.
The flight is completely autonomous.The Fleet Manager (FM) can neither take control of the trajectory of the drone, nor respond to in flight contingencies or emergencies.This does not exclude that the FM may activate the flight (e.g., when the need to urgently transport a defibrillator emerges).The RP plans the route for the flight.
The FM may plan the flight path, supported by the Operational Plan Preparation services in ISO 23269-12, but s/he may also only give to the system the coordinates of the destination point and the system would automatically calculate the flight trajectory.The RP is responsible for the activation of the Emergency Response Plan (ERP).This responsibility to which accountability and liability of the operator is connected, does not change.The FM is responsible for the activation of the ERP.The RP shall verify that the operational authorisation by the competent authority and possible administrative flight authorisations from the geozone manager have been obtained.
The FM replaces the RP to verify that all operational or administrative flight authorisations have been obtained.
High level of practical skills is needed by the RP, based on applicable legislation.The RP must also remain current with her/his skills, being also the currency regulated.
Low level of training and practical skill is needed for the FM.Being the FM a non-regulated profession, the learning objectives, the training, the qualification and the currency, remain under operator's responsibility.This does not exclude using voluntary industry standards (e.g., 3 rd edition of ISO 23665).Monitoring the outcome of the mission (e.g., analysing the information provided in real time by on-board sensors) is not normally a task of the RP, whose workload is already significant to govern the flight.
Monitoring the outcome of the mission (e.g., surveying overtemperature somewhere in a factory or verifying the urgent medical supply has been delivered) is not a task regulated by aviation authorities, but these are usual tasks for security or emergency services 24/7.The FM main duty would Economically sustainable: the FM is already part of an organisation active 24/7.S/he can just be trained to execute few simple tasks, when occasionally required.
The above however, does not exclude that a UAS operator would employ a FM, in addition to one or more RPs, even at level of automation up to 4, for tasks which do not require piloting skills, such as acquiring geographical and meteorological information, conducting risk analysis, obtaining authorisations or permissions and similar, To better understand the issues related to the costs of the personnel and the benefits of substituting the RP with the FM some examples are presented in the following.

Urgent transport of medical equipment
The first example consists in the urgent transport of medical equipment, as a defibrillator.When someone is affected by an Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA), there is the necessity to intervene as soon as possible.The best way to reduce the amount of time required to deliver a defibrillator to the patient is using a drone, which is not subject to the traffic jams of the cities or to the scarcity of road infrastructures in remote areas.Thus, the delivery times are drastically reduced and this can be life saving for such time-crucial operation.However, this is an emergency transport that cannot be organised on a routinary basis.The service must be available 24/7 but the operations will take place only when needed, which would seldom happen.This means that a RP should be available 24/7, even if its flight time would be very small compared to its duty time.to cover all the 24 hours, more than one pilot shall be hired, leading to enormous costs both for public and private organisations.
With autonomous drone operations this problem is overcome.Instead of having a RP responsible for the drone flight, a person that is already part of the organisation can be trained to interact with the drone.This person will be responsible for activating and monitoring the outcome of the drone operation and in fact, s/he has been identified as the Fleet Manager by FF2020.In the case of transport of medical equipment, the FM can correspond for example to the emergency responder already on duty.
A demonstration has been carried out in the context of the project FF2020 at San Raffaele Hospital in Milan [8].In this context, the FM corresponded to a pharmacist having received an order for a medicine to be delivered urgently to a hospital department.S/he loads het medicine into the drone 'capsule' (i.e., a crashproof container attached to the drone).Then, s/he activates the flight and monitors that it arrives at the delivery point where a doctor or a nurse can collect the medicine.

Security surveillance
Another example is the operations for the surveillance of an area or a plant.The detection of people that enters a prohibited area or of other security threats can be optimized using drones.Indeed, the security personnel just need to activate the drone flight instead of personally reaching the suspected area.However, also in this case a RP is needed 24/7, even if he operates only when there is a security threat noticed by security personnel or pointed out by automatic alerts.In this case, the drone will collect imagery and other sensory information.As in the previous example, the economic commitment can be reduced if the personnel that is already part of the organisation (e.g., security personnel) is trained to manage the autonomous drone operations.In this case, the security personnel can be trained to act as FM.
Similarly to the previous example, another demonstration has been conducted at San Raffaele Hospital in Milan concerning security surveillance [8].In this case, the security personnel monitor the hospital inside areas through security cameras, while they can activate the drone to monitor the outdoor areas surrounding the hospital.Indeed, the security personnel can be trained to trigger the flight and collect the video information coming from the drone, just sitting in their workstation in the security control centre of the hospital.

Job Profile of the Fleet Manager
Project FF2020 has named Fleet Manager the function of the personnel which could be already part of an organisation with a mission different form flying aircraft (e.g., emergency medical services or security of installations on the ground, such as hospitals or factories).However, the person may also be the employee of a UAS operator, which has decided to assign some tasks to personnel less training than the RPs, as today in aviation happens with Flight Dispatchers.The FM would be trained for few duties connected to the drone operations, but not related to flying the aircraft.The FM has different responsibilities and duties compared to the RP, especially if the operation is highly automated or autonomous.Besides possible duties upstream of the operation (e.g., obtaining regulatory approvals), firstly, the FM would be responsible for the flight activation; the flight can be activated with some simple actions.The FM could assign to the drone the coordinates of the delivery point in the case of urgent transport of medical equipment or of the area that s/he wants to monitor.Once the drone has calculated its trajectory, it can autonomously take-off and start the operation.The second task for the FM would be the collection of the information sent by the drone.This information consists of the images that the drone is collecting or the notification that the drone has delivered the transported good.However, the FM does not need to be aware of the flight parameters and cannot intervene on the drone behaviour.Based on the collected and analysed information, the FM may need to activate other respondents, but this is outside aviation.One example could be to task security personnel to go and inspect a specific point around the perimeter of a protected area, where the drone has detected a possible breach.Finally, the FM would be responsible for the activation of the Emergency Response Plan (ERP) in case the drone flight would go out of control, based on the alarm provided by the system.These tasks are quite simple and easy to execute so that on one side the competences needed are not comparable to the complex ones required for the RP.On the other side, they do not require significant effort and therefore the workload of the FM would remain acceptable.For this reason, the role of the FM can be assigned to a person that is already part of the organisation and that needs just to be trained to execute these simple additional actions.
The fulfilment of these tasks by the FM is facilitated if the drone is stored in a docking system that keeps the aircraft batteries always charged, to be ready any moment for its next flight.With this docking system, the FM has only the task of triggering the flight and follow the mission to be ready to intervene in case of emergency.The drone would operate completely autonomously and would come back to the docking system at the end of the flight.These "drones in the box" already exist today, which means that from a technical perspective these solutions are feasible.Of course, even if the flight would be fully autonomous, the UAS operator remains responsible to organise the maintenance of the drone and of the docking system.
Hence, even with this new job profile, the UAS Operator would still exists and remain accountable and liable for anything connected to the drone operation.The Operator is in fact a legal entity accountable for the operations and for the management of the drones.Indeed, the Operator is responsible for obtaining the necessary approvals and authorizations prior the operations, and this could be one of the tasks of the FM, to relieve the RPs and so to save on personnel costs.

Levels of Automation in drone operations
JARUS (Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems) [9] comprises professionals from National Aviation Authorities (NAAs) and regional aviation safety organisations.Its primary goal is to propose a unified set of technical, safety, and operational prerequisites for certifying and securely incorporating Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into airspace and at aerodromes.JARUS aims to offer instructional resources to assist each authority in formulating its unique requirements while preventing redundant work.
JARUS identified six different levels of automation related to the control of the UAS [6].The responsibilities and duties of the actors involved in drone operations depend on the level chosen by the UAS operator when planning the activity.
The JARUS levels of automation are listed below: • Level 0 -Manual Operation: The crew holds accountability for overseeing every facet of the operations, encompassing aircraft control, assessing and reacting to both the aircraft and the airspace conditions, establishing communication with external systems, and handling the aircraft in the event of malfunctions.There are no functions provided automatically by the machine.• Level 1 -Assisted Operation: Automated systems at this level are employed to assist the crew in carrying out their aviation duties.• Level 2 -Task Reduction: As technology becomes more capable and confidence in its capacity to execute tasks within a defined Operational Design Domain (ODD) grows, the degree of automation escalates to the point where the system can assume responsibility for particular tasks, allowing the crew to concentrate on tasks of greater mission importance.• Level 3 -Supervised Automation: As the automated systems' capacity is broadened to encompass not only aircraft control but also monitoring and reacting to environmental changes, the transition occurs for the crew, shifting their role from actively piloting the aircraft to actively overseeing the safety and efficiency of the operation.• Level 4 -Manage by Exception: After technology has shown its proficiency in effectively executing complete flight tasks and possesses a strong capability to adapt to its surroundings, the crew may have confidence in the autonomous flight system's ability to operate without human oversight.In this case, human monitoring is not required but human intervention must be available if required.• Level 5 -Full automation: On the extreme end of the spectrum lies a completely autonomous flight operation.At this level of automation, there is not only an absence of human participation in the operation but also a high likelihood of humans having no awareness of dynamic operational factors.Human is out of the loop.As shown in Figure 2, the human involvement gradually decreases from Level 0 to Level 5 whereas the automation involvement increases.In level 5, the degree of automation reaches its maximum since there is neither involvement of RP, nor human awareness of dynamic operational parameters.

ISO standards for UAS/UAM organisations
There are different standards for UAS/UAM organisations, however the ISO 9001:2015 standard concerning the Quality Management Systems [10] remains the baseline.It is one of the most widely used QMS standards globally and focuses on helping organizations to ensure they meet the needs and expectations of their customers and other stakeholders.The other related standards are: 1. ASTM F3003-14 Standard Specification for Quality Assurance of a Small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS) [11]; EASN-2023 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2716 (2024) 012061

Figure 2 :
Figure 2: Level of automations according to JARUS