ASTM International announced today (May 27) that its administrative committee on autonomy design and operations in aviation (AC377) has published a new white paper, “A Safety Intent-Based Application of Part 23 ‘Pilot’ and ‘Flightcrew’ Requirements for Uncrewed Aircraft.” The paper “outlines how designers of highly automated, remotely piloted, optionally piloted, and uncrewed aircraft can meet the safety intent of current regulations,” according to ASTM.
The paper puts emphasis on how airworthiness standards are able to be satisfied without regard for where or how functions are designed to be performed. “The aircraft must consistently demonstrate safe, predictable performance, whether by a human or by automated systems,” ASTM wrote.
Wes Ryan, Northrop Grumman NG Fellow for Airworthiness of Autonomy and AI and chair of AC377, said, “This paper adds to the excellent lineup of industry-driven, collaborative publications from the AC377 team addressing topics for the practical implementation of greater automation towards future autonomy. We hope it helps readers better understand the safety intent behind regulations containing expectations of pilots and flight crew, and how those expectations can be met by automation.”
I’ve been with AVweb since 1998. For years, the comment section felt like a hangar full of familiar voices, sharp minds, real pilots, real-time reactions. Some of those voices have flown west, and what remains feels cordoned off. The new setup may be cleaner, but it’s also colder.
Moving comments to a separate page cuts off that immediate back-and-forth. It may improve load times, but it’s draining the energy from the reader community, and likely the metrics too. People don’t linger when the conversation feels buried or disconnected.
AVweb always stood out because it felt like it belonged to us. I hope that spirit isn’t getting engineered out.
Respectfully,
Raf
You’re remarks are well founded and spot on. Please return to the previous format Russ.
I strongly suspect it has less to do with Russ and much more to do with corporate Flying Media Group, which sure isn’t Belvoir.
Do UAS require Annual Inspections by AMTs? Do they require type certificates and are they maintained to any particular standard?
I presume Russ is being addressed because he can (probably) funnel our concerns up the chain.
“UAS” is a rather large category which includes everything from tiny UAS up to manned-aircraft-sized UAS. It would be silly to require an AMT to inspect the tiny ones, but would make complete sense to have them inspect the larger ones.
Just an FYI: here’s a link to the white paper at ASTM’s website: https://www.astm.org/v3/assets/blt5eb0a2cb04534832/blte61e0a414555fda3/682b5f90c66571b8a8be54d2/AC377-Safety-Intent-White-Paper.pdf
Silly yes, but so is requiring a TSO on a nav light bulb. If inspections are in the public interest to protect those exposed to those aircraft, then why not require any UAV subject to FAR to comply with maintenance and inspection requirements?