NCHRP Web-Only Document 424

Uncrewed Aircraft Systems Operational Capabilities

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.

The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major program divisions of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to mobilize expertise, experience, and knowledge to anticipate and solve complex transportation-related challenges. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,500 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state departments of transportation, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP WEB-ONLY DOCUMENT 424

Monique R. Evans, Director, Cooperative Research Programs

Waseem Dekelbab, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs, and Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program

Ahmad Abu-Hawash, Senior Program Officer

Sheila A. Moore, Senior Program Assistant

Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications

Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications

Jennifer Correro, Assistant Editor

NCHRP PROJECT 23-20 PANEL
Field of Administration—Area of Agency Administration

Kofi Wakhisi, Atlanta Regional Commission, Atlanta, GA (Chair)

John D’Arville, Alabama Department of Transportation, Montgomery, AL

Matt Coffelt, Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta, GA

James Gray, FHWA Liaison

Shayne H. Gill, AASHTO Liaison

AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research reported herein was performed under National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 23-20 by a multidisciplinary team led by WSP USA, Inc. (WSP). WSP is the contractor for this project.

Paul Wheeler at WSP was the Principal Investigator (PI) for this project and Aaron Organ was the co-PI, both serving as contributing authors. Jared Esselman served as the third author of this report. The authors wish to acknowledge the Burton Planning Services (BPS) team, specifically Amelia Mansfield, Don Leonard, and Rebecca Carr (formerly of BPS), for their work on developing the survey and analyzing the survey results and supporting the in-person stakeholder feedback workshop.

The authors wish to thank the participants who volunteered time to complete surveys and participate in the working groups and stakeholder feedback workshop. We express appreciation to Aaron Chamberlin (California Department of Transportation), Abigail Smith (Federal Aviation Administration), Adam Cohen (UC Berkley), Adrienne Lindgren (formerly of Supernal), Alicia McConnell (Rawlins Infra Consult), Anthony McCloskey (Pennsylvania Department of Transportation), Barley Fields (AASHTO), Benjamin Colucci (University of Puerto Rico), Ben Goddard (The LiDAR PROs), Ben Goldman (Archer Aviation), Bob Brock (Kansas Department of Transportation), Brady Reisch (The LiDAR PROs), Brian Kassin (Kansas Department of Transportation), Brian Doherty (Skydio), Bryan Farrell (Mississippi State University), Caden Teer (Mississippi State University), Carol Niewola (New Hampshire Department of Transportation), Catherine Cahill (University of Alaska Fairbanks), Chris Bailey (Massachusetts Department of Transportation), Christopher Pfeifer (Zipline), Christopher Starr (Tennessee Department of Transportation), Clint Harper (Harper4D Consulting), Colton Dlugolecki (New York Department of Transportation), Daniel Friedenzohn (Embry Riddle Aeronautical University), David Gallagher (Ohio Department of Transportation), David Oord (Wisk), David Sarrette (Mississippi State University), Don Berchoff (TruWeather), Douglas Spotted Eagle (The LiDAR PROs), Doug Wood (Oklahoma Aerospace & Aeronautics), Emilien Marchand (Wisk), Erin Rivera (Federal Aviation Administration), Ernest Huffman (North Central Texas Council of Governments), Evan Funk (SANDAG), Gabriela Juarez (City of Los Angeles), George Kivork (Joby Aviation), Grant Bishop (Silent Falcon), Gregory Pecoraro (National Association of State Aviation Officials), Jackie Beckwith (Electrify America), James Gray (FHWA), Jacques Coulon (City of Orlando), James Grimsley (Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma), Jason Leavitt (New Hampshire Department of Transportation), Joseph Burgett (Clemson University), Joseph Marshall (Zipline), John D’Arville (Alabama Department of Transportation), John-Paul Clarke (The University of Texas at Austin), Jonathan Daniels (Praxis Aerospace), Jon Starr (Nebraska Department of Transportation), Joshua Duplantis (Louisiana

Department of Transportation), Julie Bjornstad (Wasatch Front Regional Council), Keith Paquin (Virginia Department of Transportation), Kellen Mollahan (Joby Aviation), Kofi Wakhisi (Atlanta Regional Commission), Laura Swanson (University Aviation Association), Larry Dean (South Dakota Department of Transportation), Linn Smith (Michigan Department of Transportation), Lori Pepper (California Department of Transportation), Marisa Paula Walker (Arizona Commerce Authority), Matthew Broffman (Lilium), Matthew Coffelt (Georgia Department of Transportation), Matthew Beatty (DroneUp), Melissa McCaffrey (Overair), Michelle Vigeant-Haas (Penn State University), Nick Holt (Utah Department of Transportation), Parley Jacobs (Granite School District), Paul Damron (Utah Department of Transportation), Paul Snyder (University of North Dakota), Pricila Roldan (San Diego Association of Governments), Ramses Madou (City of San Jose), Richard Fields (City of Los Angeles), Riley Beaman (North Carolina Department of Transportation), Robin Grace (Massachusetts Department of Transportation), Royce Snider (Bell Flight), Ryan Marlow (Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities), Ryan Naru (Joby Aviation), Ryan Traversa (Tennessee Department of Transportation), Sandi Hemmert (Granite School District), Sara Meess (City of Ogden), Scott Cullinane (Skydio), Sergio Roman (Texas Department of Transportation), Shayne Gill (AASHTO), Stephen Ley (Utah Valley University), Tarek Tabshouri (California Department of Transportation), Todd Pauley (The Boeing Company), Tony McCloskey (Pennsylvania Department of Transportation) and Yasmina Platt (Joby Aviation).

Additionally, the authors would like to acknowledge the dedication and support of WSP’s review, design, and editorial team for their support on this project. We express gratitude to Allyson Powers, Andrew Murak, Deborah Mandell, Evelyn Dsouza, Jag Mallela, and Sandra Brown.

Contents

INTRODUCTION

RESEARCH ACTIVITIES BY TASK

Task 0 – Kickoff Meeting and Amplified Workplan

Task 1 – Literature Review

Task 2 – Survey Stakeholders

Task 3 – Synthesize Information from Previous Tasks to Identify Knowledge Gaps

Task 4 – Propose Methodology for Guide Development

Task 5 – Outline for Proposed Guide

Task 6 – Interim Report and Presentation

Task 7 – Execute Methodology Development

Task 8 – Draft Guide Development

Task 9 – Develop Plan for Stakeholder Workshop

Task 10 – Interim Report 2 Development

Task 11 – Conduct Workshop

Task 12 – Final Deliverables

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

APPENDIX A: TASK 1 – LITERATURE REVIEW DELIVERABLES

INTRODUCTION

UNCREWED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

Current UAS Use Cases

Future UAS Use Cases and Opportunities

ADVANCED AIR MOBILITY (AAM)

AAM Use Cases and Opportunities

UAS AND AAM LEGISLATION

UAS AND AAM OBSTACLES

Unmanned Traffic Management

Key Stakeholder Roles

Federal Role

State Role

Local Role

Cross-Jurisdictional Collaboration

Funding Resources

Workforce Development

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

APPENDIX B: TASK 2 – SURVEY STAKEHOLDERS DELIVERABLES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

SURVEY PARTICIPANT IDENTIFICATION STRATEGY

SURVEY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

SURVEY RESULTS

A. GOVERNMENT AGENCY RESPONSES

A.1 Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) Programs and Policies

A.2 Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) Budgets

A.3 Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) Organization and Training

A.4 Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) Use Cases

A.5 Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) External Relations

A.6 Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) Uses and Activities

A.7 Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) Organization

A.8 Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) External Relations

B. INDUSTRY RESPONSES

B.1 Passenger Air Mobility

B.2 Freight

B.3 Service Providers

B.4 UAS Original Equipment Manufacturers

C. ACADEMIA RESPONSES

ANALYSIS

SURVEY QUESTIONS:

APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ON METHODOLOGY (TASK 7 DELIVERABLE)

INTRODUCTION

RESEARCH TOPICS AND OBJECTIVES

METHODOLOGY

Focus Group Participants

Focus Group Organization

Conduct Focus Group Meetings

Gap Analysis

Analysis

Conclusion

REFERENCES

APPENDIX D: STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK WORKSHOP PLAN

PURPOSE STATEMENT

EXPECTED OUTCOMES

LIST OF INVITEES

DRAFT AGENDA

WORKSHOP MATERIALS

WORKSHOP MODERATOR ROLES

Table of Tables

Table 1. UAS Program Maturity Gaps

Table 2. Cross-Jurisdictional Collaboration Gaps

Table 3. Funding Strategies Gaps

Table 4. UAS and AAM Academic Program Gaps

Table 5. Proposed Agenda for Focus Group Meetings

Table 6: Examples of AAM aircraft with associated use cases and operational capabilities

Table 7: Overview of State Legislation for UAS or AAM Related Activities

Table 8. Agendas for Focus Group Meetings

Table of Figures

Figure 1. Literary Map

Figure 2. Survey Response by Stakeholder Group

Figure 3. Government Agencies’ Perceived General Roles

Figure 4. Government Agencies’ Specific Roles

Figure 5. Industry Survey Participation Breakdown

Figure 6. Stakeholder Groups Participating in AAM Working Groups

Figure 7. Passenger Air Mobility Industry Response to Workforce Development Efforts

Figure 8. Proposed Methodology Timeline

Figure 9. Photos from Stakeholder Feedback Workshop

Figure 10: Literature review methodological approach (Source: WSP USA, Inc.)

Figure 11: Examples of UAS for package delivery

Figure 12: NASA Depiction of AAM Ecosystem (Source: Hackenberg, 2020)

Figure 13: NASA’s organizational framework for addressing AAM obstacles (Source: NASA, 2023)

Figure 14: FAA ConOps V2 Operational context of UTM services (Source: Federal Aviation Administration, 2020)

Figure 15: Electric aircraft funding opportunities (Source: WSP et al., 2020)

Figure 16. Organizations Represented in Survey

Figure 17. Age of UAS Programs within Government Organizations

Figure 18. Current UAS Budget

Figure 19. Planned Future UAS Use Cases

Figure 20. Use Cases per Organizational Role

Figure 21. Passenger Air Mobility External Relations

Figure 22. Service Provider Perspectives on Public- and Private-Sector Priorities for UAS Programs

Figure 23. OEM Perspectives on Public- and Private-Sector Priorities for UAS Programs

Figure 24. Prevalence of UAS/AAM/UTM-relevant Curricula within Academic Institutions Represented

Figure 25. Methodology Timeline

Figure 26. Focus Group Meeting 1 Representation

Figure 27. Focus Group Meeting 1 Attendee UAS Experience

Figure 28. Focus Group Meeting 1 Attendee AAM Experience

Figure 29. Focus Group Meeting 2 Representation

Figure 30. Focus Group Meeting 2 Attendee UAS Experience

Figure 31. Focus Group Meeting 2 Attendee AAM Experience

Figure 32. Coded Transcript Example

Figure 33. Excel Example of Referenced Codes