PERCEPTION: THE INTEGRATION PARADOX OF RPAS INTO NON-SEGREGATED AIRSPACE

John Ricardo Romero Alonso and Vladimir Andrés Espitia Zambrano Aeronáutica Civil, Barranquilla, Colombia

Miguel David Romero Di Biasi, Barranquilla, Colombia Fabián Aristo Galindo Alonso, Bogotá, Colombia

Jhon Jairo López Oviedo, Fuerza Aérea ColombianaEdgar Leonardo Gómez Gómez Aeronáutica Civil, Bogotá, Colombia

Abstract This paper describes how perception negatively

affects the integration of RPAS into a NON-segregated air space and presents a brief mathematical analysis of the available definitions of segregated airspace and protected airspace in relation to perception. Two paradigms of perception are cited: The induction paradigm and the interference paradigm. Two types of different tasks described by Prinz are analyzed with respect to the first paradigm, which are sensorimotor synchronization and spatial compatibility tasks. The article describes the normativity of the Chicago area with respect to the protected air space and how it can philosophically be considered as a segregated air space, changing the semiotic concept and the perception of aeronautical authorities. A semiotic analysis is also made of the RVSM airspace and its implications as a segregated airspace considering the PBN of the aircraft.

Keywords: Stochastic perception, non-segregated air space, protected air space, paradigm, RVSM, RPAS.

Perception Perception in man is an attribute that

differentiates it from other animal species if reference is made to abstract mathematical concepts expressed in terms of language [1]. Animal species share with human’s numerical estimates that allow them to compete for food and reproduction, however human beings are considered as the only species able to transmit through the language numerical quantities

and physical characteristics that these mathematical concepts imply affecting the perception in two ways of who transmits and who receives the information.

Perception, as a cognitive process, is bio cultural [2]; biologically because this process begins with the senses and the physical stimuli they receive and culturally because the individual selects what kind of information he wants to receive. The processing of this information includes the ordering, the classification and categorization of this information for it to be later compared with the already existing information and thus the new knowledge is created in the individual [2], a knowledge that is accessible, evident and that leads to the motor action based on this new knowledge. But, to understand the relationship that exists between perception and action, due that both share the same representation in the individual, two paradigms must be considered, which are: the induction paradigm and the interference paradigm [3]. The first one, according to Prinz, contemplates two types of tasks, "sensorimotor synchronization and spatial compatibility tasks." These two types of cognitive tasks are essential in the concept of non-segregated airspace, a topic that has been constituted in the cornerstone of the free development of RPAS worldwide. Spatial compatibility tasks are essential in that all human activities take place at a specific place and time, therefore the perception of space-temporality analyses (classifies and categorizes) the information selected from the specific situation to undertake the corresponding action demanded by the situation,

which in psychological terms is known as response to the stimulus and which for this article is considered only for external events as far as perception is concerned. At this point we must consider the information encoded in the brain of the people who regulate aviation, regarding the definition of non-segregated air space in quantitative terms, because the regulations require starting from such quantitative terms to be able to define operational safety minimums whom are necessary in the integration of RPAS with manned aircraft in the same airspace (non-segregated airspace) and it is not possible for each authority to determine such standards without having parameters defined in the world order. In general terms, the collective imaginary knows the concept of space as a site or part of a place that is occupied by an object and air is a qualification given to identify that space is in the air.

The airspace perceived as a system must have defined limits for the correct interpretation of the different variables that interact in it. Pilots and controllers must do it through models, however the complexity of these models is that their construction is directly linked to perception as a cognitive process and the interaction of the different elements of the system, including people, is done through linguistic models, this makes your understanding more difficult. Due to the development that aviation has had, it is necessary to consider evolution as a memory of this system, where the RPAS in the perception of the regulatory authorities are considered as random variables turning it into a stochastic system and the need for the perception of civil aviation authorities evolve towards the perception of air space as a deterministic system, sine qua non principle to maintain the minimum levels of safety.

Segregated Air Space and Protected Air Space

Concerning the definition of non-segregated airspace, the information that ICAO has published and that is made up of input from all the people who

carry out activities in the world of aviation at the global level, is an airspace where several aircraft simultaneously evolve in the same, whose main characteristic is that different users can use this air space. This definition is deduced from its antonym; segregated airspace "airspace of specified dimensions allocated for the exclusive use to specific user(s)" [4].

The ICAO definition for segregated airspace does not provide enough information to determine what is the safe separation between aircraft that occupy the same "airspace", due to the impenetrability condition of the matter, "it is impossible that different parts of it occupy the same spatial point at the same time" [5], Conversely, in the situation of use of a segregated airspace as occurs with the MOA (Military Operations Airspace) [6], this air space is similar to a virtual cylinder that has lateral and vertical limits where only one user's aircraft operate, (usually military aircraft) and are published by NOTAM for the knowledge of other airspace users, (Figure 1). The separation between military aircraft within this segregated airspace is not regulated.

Figure 1. Segregated Air Space (MOA) without Regulatory Separation

This type of segregated air space is the most common in Colombia regarding the exclusive

operation of a user and is used most of the time for the use of military RPAS [7].The MOAs have become an essential tool for the safe operation of military RPAS, due to the deficient regulation that exists, since the parameters that define the use of this type of aircraft, are in essence restrictions starting with the weight restriction of 25 Kilograms, since no RPAS with higher weight and for civil use, will be able to fly in the Colombian airspace. Some documents referenced in this regulation are; the Chicago Agreement, Annexes 2 and 7 of this agreement, RPAS Manual of 2015 (ICAO) Latin American Aeronautical Regulations (LAR), Route Map RPAS-SRVSOP.

There is a segregated air space, defined by ICAO, TRA (Temporary reserved area) “an air space temporally reserved and allocated for the specific use of a particular user during a determined period of time and through which other traffic may be allowed to transit under air traffic control (ATC) clearance” [8], this means, it can eventually be converted into non-segregated air space when which the transit of other airplanes is allowed, with the authorization of the air traffic controller, must do so maintaining the published separations used for the manned aircraft (Figure 2). These separations are represented (in Figure 2) by virtual purple cylinders that surrounds each the aircraft.

Figure 2. Segregated Air Space (TRA) with Regulatory Separation

The same ICAO circular (330), define other segregated airspace, TSA (Temporary segregated area) as “an airspace temporarily segregated and allocated for the exclusive use of a particular user during a determined period of time and through which other traffic will not be allowed to transit.” In this way, if it use the concept, who using the airspace, there are three different segregated airspace, MOA for use military only, TSA for one user NO military and TRA for use eventually as NON segregated airspace.

Due to the growth of traffic, ICAO proposes to make the use of air space more flexible [8], in such a way that there are NO airspace completely segregated. The problem for RPAS, it is the concept define de user civil or military but no define when there are RPAS operations.

From the perspective of physics, for there to be separation between aircraft, each of them must segregate an airspace where another aircraft cannot fly. The concept that clarifies the term of separation of aircraft in quantitative terms is called protected airspace (Perception, segregated airspace) and the FAA explains it very clearly in its Manual of procedures of instruments in chapter 3 that corresponds to arrivals [9]. The example used in this manual is the minimum lateral separation that Chicago air traffic control provides to aircraft where it is 8 nautical miles (15 km) without radar service and 3 nautical miles (5 km) with radar service. The FAA manual explains that the protected airspace corresponds to half of the minimum published separation, this distance being measured from the center of the route assigned by the air traffic control to each aircraft; in such a way that the segregated airspace is double the protected airspace, this value is explained exhaustively because when adding the values of the protected airspaces of the two aircrafts that are to be separated, the value of the minimum necessary separation is obtained. It is considered safe.

In the graphic example (Figure 3), the minimum separation of 3 Nautical Miles, requires the air traffic controller to assign routes with a minimum protected

air space of 1.5 nautical miles when radar service is provided. The segregated airspace is twice the protected airspace and should be measured around the aircraft "like a virtual cylinder that surrounds the aircraft" [10].

Figure 3. Protected Air Space for Minimal Radar Separation 3 NM (Chicago)

In such a way that if one aircraft flies laterally to another, four (4) nautical miles, the perception is of safety because it is complying with the minimum regulatory lateral separation. The same four (4) nautical miles in another air traffic unit such as the Terminal Area (TMA) of the Barranquilla control center [11] produce the perception of insecurity as it is considered that the minimum regulatory separation for this airspace (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Protected Air Space for Minimal Radar Separation 5 NM (TMA Barranquilla)

In 2017, new procedures were implemented in the lower airspaces of Bogota with the aim of improving traffic flows, reducing the waiting times of aircraft and therefore reducing fuel consumption in all operations carried out at the main airport from Colombia. One of the procedures that helps to improve the air traffic flows of said airspace, was the publication by the aeronautical authority of Colombia, of the circular titled “standarization of a minimum horizontal radar separation at Bogota`s TMA” [12], where they are specified the modifications to the minimum radar separations to be applied by air traffic controllers. In this document, for the Terminal Area (TMA) of Bogotá, manages values like Chicago, with an important difference than FAA regulation, the authority of Colombia specifies that the applied separation will also be applied longitudinally, “3 NM between aircraft established in the same ILS Locator or in the final approach track for lanes 13L / R of El Dorado Airport” (Figure 5). This separation published is lower than Barranquilla’s published, quantitatively speaking of protected airspaces and being very similar in equipment and other variables the both TMA (Barranquilla and Bogotá); the main difference for the safety perception is only the perception of who regulates the separations to apply, in this case motivated by high traffic density.

Figure 5. Protected Air Space for Minimal Radar Separation 3 NM (TMA Bogotá)

From the perspective of a mathematical model, the "stochastic" perception is explained; term that aims to demonstrate how RPAS are currently mentally represented in their interaction in non-segregated airspaces. The RPAS seen as random variables that affect the system (non-segregated airspace) are susceptible to control in each phase of the flight so as not to depend on the DAA (detect and avoid) function as a requirement of its final integration into the non-segregated airspace.

The airspace at a certain time or interval can also be considered from the perspective of dynamic systems and control engineering. For example, if the airspace at a certain moment is being trafficked by 2 airplanes, the state of the system is given by the position and velocity vectors of each of the two airplanes. The evolution of the system can be described in mathematical terms by means of matrices. If an airplane A has position vector (x_A) ⃗ and velocity (v_A) ⃑ its state vector in a moment of time (t) it will be:

( x⃗ A

v⃑ A)

As a general rule, no object must have the same position vector at the same time, as this would imply a collision. Now, according to the regulations of each

country, a restriction is added to the system, which is known as protected airspace, where | (x_A) ⃗- (x_B) ⃗ |> 2r what defines a virtual cylinder in the space [9]. The value of r is the separation that is guaranteed between aircraft. It is important to note that the position vector is composed in turn by the level components and reference sites, so that if (x_A) ⃗ = (x, y, z) the values of “x” and “y” are defined by the reference sites, while the level defines the value of “z”. These values are guaranteed by the instructions that the controllers give to the pilots to provide separation between the aircraft that evolve in the system, by Pythagoras, this separation is calculated:

|⃗x A− x⃗B|=√( x A−xB )2+( yA− y B )2+( z A−z B )2>2 r

For a system that contains RPAS aircraft, the variables that enter the system increase their complexity due to elements of these aircraft such as control commands, communications between the pilot and the aircraft and the function of Detect and Avoid (DAA) [4] that is only possible implement it with high-cost technology. In the non-segregated airspace, the authorizations of the controllers to the pilots of the RPAS must include other variables so that they are executed and to maintain the safe separation with the other manned and unmanned aircraft.

Being (R_A) ⃗ the position vector of a RPAS and (x_B) ⃗ the position vector of a manned aircraft. The vector ( 〖 ΔR 〗 _A) ⃗ = (h, k, l) is defined as the uncertainty in the position of the RPAS, uncertainty that is determined by the perception of the people working in the system.

|⃗RA− x⃗B|=√ ( xRA+h−xB )2+( yRA+k− yB )2+ ( z A+l−zB )2>2r '

where r ' is a value to be defined by each of the authorities of the countries.

These elements of uncertainty produce a phenomenon of "stochastic" perception where the number of variables that are considered random by the authorities prevents the regulation of air spaces

for the evolution of RPAS in the non-segregated airspaces and where they can be programmed. These problems of uncertainty can be minimized with adequate instruction and training of RPAS pilots and controllers, in such a way that separation is guaranteed between RPAS and manned aircraft that evolve in the same airspace within safety levels.

The same concept applies for longitudinal separation, (one aircraft after another) and for vertical separation. For this last separation, vertical separation, it is necessary to consider the RVSM (Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum) like segregated air space, concept where the protected airspace varies quantitatively depending on the navigation performance of the aircraft. This airspace is clearly defined between flight level 290 (29,000 feet with reference to mean sea level) and flight level 410 (41,000 feet with reference to mean sea level) including flight levels 290 and 410 [13]. Below flight level 290, the protected airspace has a value of 500 feet (150 meters) for all aircraft regardless of their navigation performance.

ICAO specifies exceptions to fly in this segregated airspace (RVSM). Some types of flights, classified by their nature as humanitarian or state, for example, can fly in this airspace without fulfilling the requirements to do so; On the other hand, to maintain operational safety, it is necessary to duplicate the protected airspace of these aircraft.

In Figure 6, the regulatory separation is shown for aircraft with RVSM approval (aircraft at flight levels 290 and 300) and an aircraft that does not have the equipment on board to access this space (RVSM) and must fly at flight Level 280, just below said airspace. The turbo-prop aircraft (Figure 6) cannot access the RVSM airspace (except for some special conditions), so that the NON segregated air space according to the performance of the aircraft has a vertical upper limit level of flight two eight zero (FL280) situation that began to be studied in the 1950s by ICAO [13].

Figure 6. Protected Air Space (500 Feet) for Minimal Vertical Separation Below Flight Level

290 (No RVSM Aircraft)

This means that aircraft that do not comply with a minimum of required equipment cannot fly in this segregated airspace whose topic is the performance navigation aircraft, a situation that is repeated with RPAS in most of the airspace in the world.

Above flight level 410 (Figure 7), the airspace protected for each aircraft in the vertical plane is 1,000 feet, regardless of its navigation performance, which makes it NON segregated air space according to the navigation performance of the aircraft, a situation that probably reconsidered by ICAO, due to the technological advances and the greater accuracy of the equipment it is possible that this airspace will also be considered RVSM in the future.

Perception and RPAS RegulationICAO, the world's top rector of civil aviation

worldwide, only published its handbook on remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) [4] until 2015 and recognized RPAS as aircraft, when it clarified the scope of the article 12 of the Chicago Convention that regulated separations should apply to manned aircraft and unmanned aircraft, with RPAS being a subset of the latter, it is "clear" that the same separation concepts can be applied to these aircraft.

Figure 7. Protected Air Space (1,000 Feet) for Minimal Vertical Separation Above Flight Level

410 (All Aircrafts)

The leadership of ICAO as organization is indisputable, which is reflected globally and the term RPAS has been adopted without reservations by the member countries of that organization, however, the cornerstone of this issue is the question: how can they evolve in the same airspace RPAS with manned aircraft without endangering the lives of people and their material properties?

In 2013, ICAO proposes a roadmap with its global navigation plan and the block improvement methodology where block 1 [14] is set as the target in 2018 for the start of the operation of the RPA with the traffic of manned aircraft what is known as "Initial integration in the non-segregated airspace of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPA". The subject is so complex due to the perception of safety that is handled by the aeronautical authorities of the different countries, which is really a psychological problem and only when the technology provides acceptable levels of security in the perception of those who decide, write and publish the standards, they can include the RPA in daily life, wasting their potential to improve the lives of millions of people around the world in all fields of science including improving the performance of agriculture and stop

the adverse effects on climate change through research and less consumption of fossil fuels in routine tasks such as search and rescue.

The perception seen from the psychological field as it corresponds and not from the different critical views of other sciences such as anthropology, is the analytical element that resolves the concept of non-segregated airspace in favor of the operation of the RPA together with the manned aircraft, simultaneously. Although the perception is subjective and depends on the physical capabilities of the individual, it is very important to emphasize that for this cognitive process to take place, it must have an input of information provided by the culture and society surrounding that individual. In this order of ideas, a blind person will not be able to perceive the white of the snow, however if there is no light that refracts the white color of the snow, neither can a seer perceive the color, the result being the same.

About the concept of non-segregated airspace, the information handled by ICAO and that is an input of all the people who develop their activities in the world of aviation, the concept itself is not defined quantitatively in such a way that it is the perception of who regulates and makes the rules who definitely considers what is the size of the airspace that allows the evolution of several aircraft simultaneously in a safe way. ICAO in its publications regarding RPAS, does not produce the degree of commitment necessary in the authorities of the different countries for the creation and implementation of the rules that allow the operation of these systems in the non-segregated airspaces, on the contrary, ICAO uses an ambiguous language that corresponds to the semiotic phenomenon described by Saussure and analyzed by Morency and Oswald, in 2008 [15] where the sender "is more committed to the propositional content of his statements than to its implications" affecting in a negative way and to a superlative degree the interpretation of the documents published by the authorities of the different member countries of the Chicago Convention. When there is no commitment from the sender with the sent

message, “the direct or reputation cost is not assumed in those topics that are not reliable” [16], In other words, the rules published by the rector of world aviation produce more questions than answers and this situation in the aviation field only has a foreseeable result, the prohibition of operation of RPAS in non-segregated airspaces for the sake of preserve acceptable levels of safety. An example of the lack of commitment of the sender to send the message is paragraph b of the chapter limitations (RPAS) in Colombian´s regulation [17] "(b) Fly so that a risk can be created for people or properties on the surface, particularly when the strong wind or any another meteorological factor, as well as mechanical defects of the apparatus or control equipment, or lack of expertise of the operator, which may cause total control over it to be lost.”

The regulation must have the specific requirements of operation for the user to comply with them.

ConclusionsThe fear of the unknown is a natural instinct in

the human being and is the product of thousands of years of evolution where man faces serious dangers that threaten his survival as a species. In this context, aviation was developed as a technological advance that was initially rejected, but its advantages being evident for the very survival of men, it was opened to this natural fear, to such an extent that nowadays its development and became vitally important for the progress and survival cited above. Now, aviation faces the same fears as regards remotely piloted aircraft, following very costly and time-delayed roads such as the development of new technology for RPAS, which will overcome these fears of survival rooted in the human being.

By defining the non-segregated airspaces as the sum of the segregated airspaces of all aircraft, the paradox that stops the advance of RPAS in the non-segregated airspaces of the world is that each aircraft, manned or remotely piloted, must have its own segregated airspace and the difference is in the

quantitative terms that the different aeronautical authorities of each country use when designing airspaces where these and other aircraft evolve.

It is evident that the obstacles to publish the rules that regulate the RPAS in the non-segregated airspaces, are psychological and the fear of facing responsibilities for possible adverse effects that these aviation systems (RPAS) can cause in the communities, forgetting that aviation It has an inherent risk in its operation and forgetting the accidents of piloted aircraft that a little more than a century after its invention are counted in thousands with thousands of fatalities and millions in economic losses, which has not stopped its evolution.

In the same way that Leibniz recognized that you cannot isolate the sound individually from a wave to perceive its murmur, the non-segregated airspace is the conjunction of the segregated airspaces of each aircraft and this defines the paradox of the RPAS that stops its rapid evolution in the airspace; like Leibniz, "it is impossible for our soul to attend to everything in particular; that is why our confused sensations are the result of a truly infinity of variety of perceptions” [18] as many times as people who regulate aviation in the world.

References[1] Anobile, Giovanni, Guido Cicchini, David Burr, 2016, Number As a Primary Perceptual Attribute: A Review, Perception, vol. 45, no. 1–2, pp. 5–31.

[2] Vargas, Luz, 1994, Sobre el Concepto de Percepción, ALTERIDADES, no. 48, pp. 47–53.

[3] Prinz, Wolfgang, 1997, Perception and Action Planning, European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 129–154.

[4] International Civil Aviation Organization, 2015, Manual on Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS).

[5] Oroño, Matias, 2016, The Starting Point, Assumptions and Scope of the Kantian Refutation of

Idealism, Tópicos Revista de Filosofia, vol. 53, no. 53, pp. 229–253.

[6] AIS - Colombia, 2013, AIC C17, operación ART de la Fuerza Aérea Colombiana área general de Puerto Asís (Putumayo).

[7] AIP Colombia 2018, ENR 5.2 Zonas De Maniobras E Instrucción Civil y Militar, pp. 4,5.

[8] International Civil Aviation Organization, 2011, Cir330 Civil/Military Cooperation in Air Traffic Management

[9] Federal Aviation Administration, 2015, Instrument Procedures Handbooks (IPH), Chapter 3 Arrivals.

[10] Zhenkun Wen, Li Tianrui, 2014, Foundations of Intelligent Systems_ Proceedings of the Eighth International, pp. 387

[11] AIP Colombia ENR, 2017, Servicio y Procedimiento Radar, 1.6 pp. 1–8.

[12] AIS - Colombia, 2017, AIC C11, Standarization of a Minimum Horizontal Radar Separation at Bogota`s TMA.

[13] International Civil Aviation Organization, 2001, Doc 9574 Manual on Implementation of a 300 m (1

000 ft) Vertical Separation Minimum Between FL 290 and FL 410 Inclusive

[14] Organización de Aviación Civil Internacional, 2013, Plan Mundial de Navegación Aérea 2013–2028.

[15] Morency, Patrick, Oswald Steve, & de Saussure Louis (2008). Explicitness, Implicitness and Commitment Attribution: a Cognitive Pragmatic Approach. Belgian journal of linguistics, 22(1), 197-219.

[16] Colin Vullioud, Fabrice Clément, Thom Scott-Phillips, Hugo Mercier, (2016). Confidence as an Expression of Commitment: Why Misplaced Expressions of Confidence Backfire. Evolution and Human Behavior 38 (2017) 9–17

[17] Colombian Authority Civil Aviation, 2015, Requisitos Generales de Aeronavegabilidad y Operaciones Para RPAS (Numeral 4.25.8.2) pp. 1–34

[18] Arew Roger, Daniel Garber, G. W. Leibniz, 2015, Philosophical essays, pp. 65

2019 Integrated Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance (ICNS) Conference

April 9-11, 2019