IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v13y2020i3p608-d314839.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identification, Categorisation and Gaps of Safety Indicators for U-Space

Author

Listed:
  • Javier Alberto Pérez-Castán

    (Aerospace Systems, Air Transport and Airports, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain)

  • Fernando Gómez Comendador

    (Aerospace Systems, Air Transport and Airports, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain)

  • Ana Belén Cardenas-Soria

    (Aerospace Systems, Air Transport and Airports, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain)

  • Dominik Janisch

    (Centro de Referencia de Investigación Desarrollo e Innovación, ATM A.I.E., Avenida de Aragón 402, 28022 Madrid, Spain)

  • Rosa M. Arnaldo Valdés

    (Aerospace Systems, Air Transport and Airports, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain)

Abstract

Many civilian applications of commercial unmanned aircraft are being planned to operate in the years ahead. Several countries have developed their own framework to design the operation of unmanned aircraft and the different services that demand safe operation. This paper focuses on the European framework denoted as U-space which concludes with the joint integration of manned and unmanned aircraft in the airspace. U-space is a set of novel services and specific procedures designed to provide safe and efficient access into the airspace to the airspace users. U-space constitutes a management system to organise unmanned operations and provides relevant information to drone operators as well as manned aircraft, air navigation service providers and authorities. The understanding of associated hazards and risks to unmanned aircraft is a critical issue for their operation in complex and non-segregated airspaces. The safety assessment developed herein is crucial to identify safety indicators for U-space. In addition, the identification of safety indicators was used to identify gaps in U-spaces services that are not correctly covered by the U-space framework. Particularly, several safety indicators are identified that currently U-space services do not consider and can imply an increase in the operational risk of unmanned operations.

Suggested Citation

  • Javier Alberto Pérez-Castán & Fernando Gómez Comendador & Ana Belén Cardenas-Soria & Dominik Janisch & Rosa M. Arnaldo Valdés, 2020. "Identification, Categorisation and Gaps of Safety Indicators for U-Space," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-17, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:3:p:608-:d:314839
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/3/608/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/3/608/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steffen Kaspers & Nektarios Karanikas & Alfred Roelen & Selma Piric & Robert J. De Boer, 2019. "How does aviation industry measure safety performance? Current practice and limitations," International Journal of Aviation Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 4(3), pages 224-245.
    2. Reece A. Clothier & Dominique A. Greer & Duncan G. Greer & Amisha M. Mehta, 2015. "Risk Perception and the Public Acceptance of Drones," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(6), pages 1167-1183, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Svetlana V. Shvetsova & Alexey V. Shvetsov, 2021. "Ensuring safety and security in employing drones at airports," Journal of Transportation Security, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 41-53, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sabino, Hullysses & Almeida, Rodrigo V.S. & Moraes, Lucas Baptista de & Silva, Walber Paschoal da & Guerra, Raphael & Malcher, Carlos & Passos, Diego & Passos, Fernanda G.O., 2022. "A systematic literature review on the main factors for public acceptance of drones," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    2. Lee, Changju & Bae, Bumjoon & Lee, Yu Lim & Pak, Tae-Young, 2023. "Societal acceptance of urban air mobility based on the technology adoption framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    3. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "How Safe Is Safe Enough for Self‐Driving Vehicles?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 315-325, February.
    4. Anania, Emily C. & Rice, Stephen & Pierce, Matthew & Winter, Scott R. & Capps, John & Walters, Nathan W. & Milner, Mattie N., 2019. "Public support for police drone missions depends on political affiliation and neighborhood demographics," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 95-103.
    5. Osakwe, Christian Nedu & Hudik, Marek & Říha, David & Stros, Michael & Ramayah, T., 2022. "Critical factors characterizing consumers’ intentions to use drones for last-mile delivery: Does delivery risk matter?," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    6. Liu, Peng & Zhang, Yawen & He, Zhen, 2019. "The effect of population age on the acceptable safety of self-driving vehicles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 341-347.
    7. Matthew Ayamga & Bedir Tekinerdogan & Ayalew Kassahun, 2021. "Exploring the Challenges Posed by Regulations for the Use of Drones in Agriculture in the African Context," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, February.
    8. Thurner, Thomas & Fursov, Konstantin & Nefedova, Alena, 2022. "Early adopters of new transportation technologies: Attitudes of Russia’s population towards car sharing, the electric car and autonomous driving," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 403-417.
    9. Del-Real, Cristina & Díaz-Fernández, Antonio M., 2021. "Lifeguards in the sky: Examining the public acceptance of beach-rescue drones," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    10. Chikaraishi, Makoto & Khan, Diana & Yasuda, Banri & Fujiwara, Akimasa, 2020. "Risk perception and social acceptability of autonomous vehicles: A case study in Hiroshima, Japan," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 105-115.
    11. Ayamga, Matthew & Akaba, Selorm & Nyaaba, Albert Apotele, 2021. "Multifaceted applicability of drones: A review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    12. Lin Tan, Lynn Kai & Lim, Beng Chong & Park, Guihyun & Low, Kin Huat & Seng Yeo, Victor Chuan, 2021. "Public acceptance of drone applications in a highly urbanized environment," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    13. Decker, Christopher & Chiambaretto, Paul, 2022. "Economic policy choices and trade-offs for Unmanned aircraft systems Traffic Management (UTM): Insights from Europe and the United States," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 40-58.
    14. Hans E. Comtet & Karl-Arne Johannessen, 2021. "The Moderating Role of Pro-Innovative Leadership and Gender as an Enabler for Future Drone Transports in Healthcare Systems," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-15, March.
    15. Smith, Angela & Dickinson, Janet E. & Marsden, Greg & Cherrett, Tom & Oakey, Andrew & Grote, Matt, 2022. "Public acceptance of the use of drones for logistics: The state of play and moving towards more informed debate," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    16. Zahid Shahab Ahmed & Bert Jenkins & Waseem Iftikhar, 2017. "Perception of Foreign Drone Strikes by Citizens: The Context of US Drone Strikes in Pakistan," South Asian Survey, , vol. 24(2), pages 135-157, September.
    17. Huang, Chenyu & Chen, Yu-Che & Harris, Joseph, 2021. "Regulatory compliance and socio-demographic analyses of civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems users," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    18. Komasová, Sarah & Tesař, Jakub & Soukup, Petr, 2020. "Perception of drone related risks in Czech society," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    19. Al Haddad, Christelle & Chaniotakis, Emmanouil & Straubinger, Anna & Plötner, Kay & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2020. "Factors affecting the adoption and use of urban air mobility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 696-712.
    20. Koh, Le Yi & Lee, Jia Yi & Wang, Xueqin & Yuen, Kum Fai, 2023. "Urban drone adoption: Addressing technological, privacy and task–technology fit concerns," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:3:p:608-:d:314839. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.