Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-bvgqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-21T19:48:05.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Operational safety and unmanned aircraft: Hazards related to air traffic control activity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2025

A.M. Almeida Open the ORCID record for A.M. Almeida [Opens in a new window] ,
F.P. Da Silva  and
L.F. Rodrigues Pinto Open the ORCID record for L.F. Rodrigues Pinto [Opens in a new window]
A.M. Almeida*
Affiliation:
Universidade Nove de Julho (UNINOVE), São Paulo, Brazil
F.P. Da Silva
Affiliation:
Universidade Nove de Julho (UNINOVE), São Paulo, Brazil
L.F. Rodrigues Pinto
Affiliation:
Universidade Nove de Julho (UNINOVE), São Paulo, Brazil
*
Corresponding author: A.M. Almeida; Email: aa2000@uol.com.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The increase in activities related to unmanned aircraft systems and the implementation of this new ecosystem have introduced new hazards, impacting the operational safety of air traffic, particularly near airports, creating risks and disruptions in the flow of aircraft. The establishment of airspace for unmanned traffic management has required the integration of this new airspace with the existing one, bringing the potential for issues from this integration. A method was identified as needed to guide the detection of hazards posed to air traffic control activities and the consequent implementation of required mitigation measures. The aim of this work is to propose a framework for identifying hazards introduced to air traffic control, with a view to ensure the safe transition of this process. The method involved consulting air traffic operational safety specialists via a questionnaire, presenting the hazards highlighted in the literature concerning the integration of new airspace concepts within air traffic control activities. The results, obtained through a Delphi consultation, were analysed based on the most frequently assigned scores (mode) to reflect expert consensus. The results were organised into the proposed framework, establishing a guide to risk management activities aimed at implementing the change. The resulting structure was re-submitted to specialists and validated based on the Delphi method. Contributions to society include a guide for this process and potential future implementations, while the literature gap was addressed by adding knowledge to the scientific process.

Keywords

operational safetyrisk managementunmanned aircraft traffic managementunmanned aircraft systems

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , First View , pp. 1 - 17
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Lykou, G., Moustakas, D. and Gritzalis, D. Defending airports from UAS: A survey on cyber-attacks and counter-drone sensing technologies, Sensors, 2020, 20, (12), p 3537.10.3390/s20123537CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zaréa, M., Pognonec, G., Schmidt, C., Schnur, T., Lana, J., Boehm, C. and Rigaud, E. First steps in developing an automated aerial surveillance approach, J. Risk Res., 2013, 16, (3-4), pp 407–420.10.1080/13669877.2012.729520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahanpour, E.S., Berberian, B., Imbert, J.P. and Roy, R. NCognitive fatigue assessment in operational settings: A review and UAS implications, IFAC-PapersOnLine, 2020, 53, (5), pp 330–337.10.1016/j.ifacol.2021.04.188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, C.J., Tan, S.K. and Low, K.H. Three-dimensional (3D) Monte-Carlo modeling for UAS collision risk management in restricted airport airspace, Aerospace Sci. Technol., 2020, 105, p 105964.10.1016/j.ast.2020.105964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiche, C., Cohen, A.P. and Fernando, C. An initial assessment of the potential weather barriers of urban air mobility, IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., 2021, 22, (9), pp 6018–6027.10.1109/TITS.2020.3048364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besada, J.A., Campaña, I., Bergesio, L., Bernardos, A.M. and Miguel, G. Drone flight planning for safe urban operations: UTM requirements and tools, 2019 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PerCom Workshops), IEEE, 2019, pp 924–930.10.1109/PERCOMW.2019.8730856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clothier, R.A., Palmer, J.L., Walker, R.A. and Fulton, N.L. Definition of an airworthiness certification framework for civil unmanned aircraft systems, Safety Sci., 2011, 49, (6), pp 871–885.10.1016/j.ssci.2011.02.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speijker, L.J.P., Lee, X. and Leijgraaf, R. Framework for unmanned aircraft systems safety risk management, SAE Int. J. Aerospace, 2011, 4, (2), pp 1228–1242.10.4271/2011-01-2688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ISO, ISO 31000:2018 - Risk Management - Principles and Guidelines, 2018, International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
Sanz, D., Valente, J., Del Cerro, J., Colorado, J. and Barrientos, A. Safe operation of mini UAV: A review of regulation and best practices, Adv. Rob., 2015, 29, (19), pp 1221–1233.10.1080/01691864.2015.1051111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maciejewska, M., Kardach, M., Galant, M. and Fuć, P. The risk of hazards analysis in unmanned aerial vehicle flight, J. KONBIN, 2019, 49, (3), pp 351–374.10.2478/jok-2019-0062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, X., Pang, B., Dai, F. and Low, K.H. Risk assessment model for UAV cost-effective path planning in urban environments, IEEE Access, 2020, 8, pp 150162–150173.10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3016118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bu, J., Zhang, H., Hu, M. and Liu, H. Risk assessment of unmanned aerial vehicle flight based on K-means clustering algorithm, Trans. Nanjing Univ. Aeronaut. Astronaut., 2020, 37, (2), pp 263–273.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Guo, J.C. and Liao, J.D. Construction and research of safety management system for machine patrol operation, Math. Problems Eng., 2021, 2021, pp 1–7.Google Scholar
Henderson, I.L. Examining New Zealand unmanned aircraft users’ measures for mitigating operational risks, Drones, 2022, 6, (2), pp 32.10.3390/drones6020032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopardekar, P., Rios, J., Prevot, T., Johnson, M., Jung, J. and Robinson, J.E. Unmanned aircraft system traffic management (UTM) concept of operations, AIAA Aviation and Aeronautics Forum (Aviation 2016), 2016.Google Scholar
Grote, M., Pilko, A., Scanlan, J., Cherrett, T., Dickinson, J., Smith, A. and Marsden, G. Sharing airspace with Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAV): Views of the General Aviation (GA) community, J. Air Transp. Manag., 2022, 102, p 102218.10.1016/j.jairtraman.2022.102218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowley, J. and Slack, F. Conducting a literature review, Manag. Res. News, 2004, 27, (6), pp 31–39.10.1108/01409170410784185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooker, P. Air traffic safety: Continued evolution or a new paradigm, Aeronaut. J., 2008, 112, (1132), pp 333–343.Google Scholar
ICAO, S. M. Doc 4444 – Procedures for Air Navigation Services: Air Traffic Management, International Civil Aviation Organization, 2016, Montreal.Google Scholar
ICAO, Manual on remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS), International Civil Aviation Organization, 2015, Montreal.Google Scholar
Ermacora, G., Rosa, S. and Toma, A. Fly4SmartCity: A cloud robotics service for smart city applications, J. Ambient Intell. Smart Environ., 2016, 8, (3), pp 347–358.10.3233/AIS-160374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doo, J.T., Pavel, M.D., Didey, A., Hange, C., Diller, N.P., Tsairides, M.A. and Mooberry, J. NASA Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) Aircraft Technology for Public Services – A White Paper, 2021.Google Scholar
ICAO, S. M. Doc 9859, Safety Management Manual (SMM), International Civil Aviation Organization, 2018, Montreal.Google Scholar
Ferreira, R.B., Baum, D.M., Neto, E.C.P., Martins, M.R., Almeida, J.R., Cugnasca, P.S. and Camargo, J.B. A risk analysis of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) integration into non-segregate airspace, 2018 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), IEEE, 2018, pp 42–51.10.1109/ICUAS.2018.8453455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuenz, A., Lieb, J., Rudolph, M., Volkert, A., Geister, D., Ammann, N. and Walther, H. Live trials of dynamic geo-fencing for the tactical avoidance of hazard areas, IEEE Aerospace Electron. Syst. Mag., 2023, 38, (5), pp 60–71.10.1109/MAES.2023.3238395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamissi, A. and Dhraief, A. A survey on the unmanned aircraft system traffic management, ACM Comput. Surv., 2023, 56, (3), pp 1–37.10.1145/3617992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., Zou, X., Wu, Q., Xie, F. and Liu, W. Empirical study of airport geofencing for unmanned aircraft operation based on flight track distribution, Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol., 2020, 121, pp 102881.10.1016/j.trc.2020.102881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullrich, M., Pothana, P., Thornby, J., Snyder, P.E, and Vidhyadharan, S. Determining the saturation point for UAV operations in airport environments: A probabilistic approach, 2024 Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS), IEEE, 2024, pp 1–11. 10.1109/ICNS60906.2024.10550905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutuel, L.H., Wargo, C.A. and Difelici, J. Functional decomposition of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) for CNS capabilities in NAS integration, 2015 IEEE Aerospace Conference, IEEE, 2015, pp 1–17.10.1109/AERO.2015.7118913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, A.T. and Rodrigues, C.C. Commercial Aviation Safety, 5th Ed., McGraw-Hill, 2003, New York.Google Scholar
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G. and The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement, Int. J. Surg., 2010, 8, (5), pp 336–341.10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed