FAQ with specific reference to deployment in the Pacific region.
Do you need permanently located Micro-Hangars ?
Micro-Hangars have many substantial advantages, as listed below, but the Information Network and the Rescue Robotics methodology can still provide full functionality during an Emergency Event as long as there are alternative ways to rapidly deploy UAS into the distaster areas.
One of the key features of the Rescue Robotics Information Network system is it's ability to function completely independent of all other existing infrustructure.
Why a permanent Micro-Hangar rather than a mobile platform ?
Speed is the primary factor here. If the aircraft are already in the region where disaster strikes then the resulting information collection is considerably accelerated. The logic is the same with rural Fire Stations. You are unlikely to hear someone ask why these are not mobile as proximity to the anticipated Emergencies is the very reason they are located where they are. The answer would be the same for Micro-Hangars except that the breath of Emergency Response operations is far wider than just Fire events. Speed of response to any Emergency Event has considerable implications and cumulative effects on the success of the response.
Micro-Hangars and Command & Control Centres can be available as mobile platforms and there are trailerised versions of both. These units can also be located on ships, trains and trucks but in many cases the geographical nature of the operational environment, in remote areas and with difficult or damaged road access, makes the utility of mobile formats more restrictive than permanent units.
For example, around Pacific island nations shipborne operations of UAS from mobile Micro-Hangar and Command & Control units, linked into the Rescue Robotics system, can be included but it should be noted that in such operations;
a) UAS operations must obtain regulatory consents from the host nation before deployment
b) considerable delays can be incurred by the basic logistical challenge of getting to the area of operations
c) mobile systems are unlikely to offer on-going data gathering operations in any specific location during emergencies
d) do not contribute to a persistent non-emergency data collection capability and therefore
e) do not offer the host nation an incentive of long term benefits as would the data collection obtained by the permanent Micro-Hangar operations.
An alternative mobile system is airborne deployment of UAS and airborne, or ship based, Command and Control. Pre-existing alliances with organisations that can provide this transport capability must be in place but we consider this type of platform a highly viable option for remote locations and conducive to the Rescue Robotics methodology.
What about community involvement and Host Nations in the Pacific ?
Integration into the local community where Micro-Hangar locations are targeted is fundamental to the long term success of this system. Before deployment into these operational zones the local communities must be consulted, their specific requirements identified, particularly as every location has unique features that are relevant during an Emergency Event, and the potential areas that can best benefit from the non-emergency survey operations discussed. The local communities will be asked to be the guardians of their localised Micro-Hangar and ultimately the system. In order to gain their trust and enlist their support, the data benefits of the non-emergency UAS operations must be transmitted into real benefits, particularly in horticultural activities, environmental monitoring and Search & Rescue operations.
The potential economic benefits of UAS are well documented, even for such a fledgling industry. Particularly for island nations, these benefits will translate into real, quantifiable gains for the host nation, the government and develop economic resilience in the face of future emergency events, a powerful consideration for nations with less developed or fragile economies.
Why have a Hi-Tech solution in remote and relatively low-tech environments in the Pacific ?
Although this system is a hi-tech solution it is important to recognise that;
a) the system is designed from the ground up as being highly automated and therefore has very low personnel and minimal maintenance requirements.
b) It is expected that under normal operating conditions each Micro-Hangar will require a service inspection once per year. The Command and Control Centre will under normal conditions have a standard crew of two operating up to 100 UAS. This creates very low on-going operational costs.
c) As the Command and Control Centre is a Communication Hub that is able to be accessed internationally, in most circumstances expert analysis can be achieved directly from international locations without the need for physical attendance. In an Emergency Event, should damage become so severe that international links are tenuous, the Command and Control Centre provides a centralised Communication Hub which relief experts can attend to assist analysis during operations independent of all other infrustructure.
d) The data will have consistency in format and be useable by all agencies, so will be easily accessed, and contributed to, by supporting agencies.
e) Data hierarchies will be developed to take into account local values and customs, ensuring deliverables are pertinent to local requirements as well as Emergency Relief agencies.
e) The system provides a secondary communication capability, via communication relay from UAS and Micro-Hangars, for remote populations in both emergency and non-emergency operations.
f) UAS payloads can be customised to suit specific regional tasks such as volcano monitoring.
g) Advanced hybrid sensor development will allow operations in heavy weather conditions and day/night operations. This vastly extends micro UAS capability from existing platforms and thus adds considerable value to the system.
h) The system will free up large scale relief assets, such as military aircraft and ships, to perform supporting operations.
i) All system components, with the exception of advanced Hybrid Sensor development, utilise exisiting technology.
What about alternatives and potential redundancy from the rapid advances in technology ?
The system provides an infrastructure that has been conceived from the initial design as being open to technological development. It is important to recognise that the establishment of the infrastructure is the permanent and essential aspect of the system. As such, technological upgrades only add benefits to the capability of the system. This means that the system itself is both highly flexible and future proof.
The most likely contender for rapid and sustained information gathering operations has been identified as coming from a new generation of nano-satellites. These will have useful aspects but also considerable limitations compared to a permanent Rescue Robotics system. These include,
a) a limited rapid response capability. It is estimated from current figures that the new breed of nano-satellites will be able to provide a coverage at a maximum of every twelve hours ... in good weather conditions.
b) satellites struggle to provide all-weather capability, being highly restricted and even negated by cloud cover conditions.
c) they have limited data resolution, limited sensor options and carry non-upgradeable payloads and sensors.
d) cannot provide persistent localised operations due to the inherent transient nature of their flight paths.
e) offer information that is not independently obtained, secured, analysed and transmitted
What about the cost .... and why doesn't the government pay for it ?
Before talking about cost we need to identify that, despite the name, the Rescue Robotics system is not just about Emergency Response. Yes, this is the primary purpose of the system but a powerful economic driver is the non-emergency activities that this system will carry out.
Let's look at it this way, how many people complain about the cost of their local Fire Stations or Fire Trucks ? Well, what if those vehicles not only attended emergency events to save lives but when they weren't doing that they could somehow help local farmers grow their crops, capture data on the environmental impacts of climate change, provide a temporary communication link when people in remote locations lose cellular connectivity or search for a local person who has gone missing, What would the cost-value consideration become of having those, initially task specific vehicles, do all this other great work ?
One of the big problems around financing this type of system is identifying who is going to pay for it. Having such a multi-faceted system actually makes it very difficult to get the financial backing of any specific government organisation. No matter how crazy this seems we need to understand how government organisations work. All government departments have their own budgets to consider and these budgets are focused on achieving benefits for their specific operational targets. Put it this way, do you think that the Fire Service should pay for a system that helps farmers grow crops ? Of course not. They have enough trouble squeezing finances out of their budgets to address their own specific challenges . They will very likely fully support the idea of tools that help the local farmers but this isn't their job and this capability suddenly makes the Rescue Robotics system not specifically a Fire Service tool and this makes presenting it in, what is likely an already stretched budget, rather tricky. Even when the system offers increased capability to a multitude of other Emergency Services it still makes it difficult for them to finance a system as the inevitable question is "why should we be the ones paying for other Emergency Services tools". The problem isn't the goodwill of the various parties, rather it's a financing structure issue.
When it comes to national level Emergency Event response we like to point out that one Micro-Hangar, able to service the area of a major city on a permanent long term basis, will cost the same as a one hour flight of a military helicopter. We have been told by some government departments, "that's the military's budget - not ours". The fact is that all government departments activities are paid for by the tax payer and the more benefit we can get from any system, the better value for money it is for all of us. Never is this more relevant during national scale Emergency Events.
Rescue Robotics is a system that offers substantial benefit for all Emergency Services but not only that it has massive economic implications for local communities who can benefit from the same technology but may not have the financial resources to invest in a separate system that offers this capability. When we consider the wide ranging financial implications of this multi-faceted system, the cost is cheaper than a system that could achieve even a small percentage of these tasks.
The Rescue Robotics system can be seen as a way of democratising the benefits of UAS and their advanced sensors. What we really need is a collaborative approach between all government agencies to supporting this system and a fresh approach to consider this new and exciting methodology, but this isn't as easy as it seems.
Do you need permanently located Micro-Hangars ?
Micro-Hangars have many substantial advantages, as listed below, but the Information Network and the Rescue Robotics methodology can still provide full functionality during an Emergency Event as long as there are alternative ways to rapidly deploy UAS into the distaster areas.
One of the key features of the Rescue Robotics Information Network system is it's ability to function completely independent of all other existing infrustructure.
Why a permanent Micro-Hangar rather than a mobile platform ?
Speed is the primary factor here. If the aircraft are already in the region where disaster strikes then the resulting information collection is considerably accelerated. The logic is the same with rural Fire Stations. You are unlikely to hear someone ask why these are not mobile as proximity to the anticipated Emergencies is the very reason they are located where they are. The answer would be the same for Micro-Hangars except that the breath of Emergency Response operations is far wider than just Fire events. Speed of response to any Emergency Event has considerable implications and cumulative effects on the success of the response.
Micro-Hangars and Command & Control Centres can be available as mobile platforms and there are trailerised versions of both. These units can also be located on ships, trains and trucks but in many cases the geographical nature of the operational environment, in remote areas and with difficult or damaged road access, makes the utility of mobile formats more restrictive than permanent units.
For example, around Pacific island nations shipborne operations of UAS from mobile Micro-Hangar and Command & Control units, linked into the Rescue Robotics system, can be included but it should be noted that in such operations;
a) UAS operations must obtain regulatory consents from the host nation before deployment
b) considerable delays can be incurred by the basic logistical challenge of getting to the area of operations
c) mobile systems are unlikely to offer on-going data gathering operations in any specific location during emergencies
d) do not contribute to a persistent non-emergency data collection capability and therefore
e) do not offer the host nation an incentive of long term benefits as would the data collection obtained by the permanent Micro-Hangar operations.
An alternative mobile system is airborne deployment of UAS and airborne, or ship based, Command and Control. Pre-existing alliances with organisations that can provide this transport capability must be in place but we consider this type of platform a highly viable option for remote locations and conducive to the Rescue Robotics methodology.
What about community involvement and Host Nations in the Pacific ?
Integration into the local community where Micro-Hangar locations are targeted is fundamental to the long term success of this system. Before deployment into these operational zones the local communities must be consulted, their specific requirements identified, particularly as every location has unique features that are relevant during an Emergency Event, and the potential areas that can best benefit from the non-emergency survey operations discussed. The local communities will be asked to be the guardians of their localised Micro-Hangar and ultimately the system. In order to gain their trust and enlist their support, the data benefits of the non-emergency UAS operations must be transmitted into real benefits, particularly in horticultural activities, environmental monitoring and Search & Rescue operations.
The potential economic benefits of UAS are well documented, even for such a fledgling industry. Particularly for island nations, these benefits will translate into real, quantifiable gains for the host nation, the government and develop economic resilience in the face of future emergency events, a powerful consideration for nations with less developed or fragile economies.
Why have a Hi-Tech solution in remote and relatively low-tech environments in the Pacific ?
Although this system is a hi-tech solution it is important to recognise that;
a) the system is designed from the ground up as being highly automated and therefore has very low personnel and minimal maintenance requirements.
b) It is expected that under normal operating conditions each Micro-Hangar will require a service inspection once per year. The Command and Control Centre will under normal conditions have a standard crew of two operating up to 100 UAS. This creates very low on-going operational costs.
c) As the Command and Control Centre is a Communication Hub that is able to be accessed internationally, in most circumstances expert analysis can be achieved directly from international locations without the need for physical attendance. In an Emergency Event, should damage become so severe that international links are tenuous, the Command and Control Centre provides a centralised Communication Hub which relief experts can attend to assist analysis during operations independent of all other infrustructure.
d) The data will have consistency in format and be useable by all agencies, so will be easily accessed, and contributed to, by supporting agencies.
e) Data hierarchies will be developed to take into account local values and customs, ensuring deliverables are pertinent to local requirements as well as Emergency Relief agencies.
e) The system provides a secondary communication capability, via communication relay from UAS and Micro-Hangars, for remote populations in both emergency and non-emergency operations.
f) UAS payloads can be customised to suit specific regional tasks such as volcano monitoring.
g) Advanced hybrid sensor development will allow operations in heavy weather conditions and day/night operations. This vastly extends micro UAS capability from existing platforms and thus adds considerable value to the system.
h) The system will free up large scale relief assets, such as military aircraft and ships, to perform supporting operations.
i) All system components, with the exception of advanced Hybrid Sensor development, utilise exisiting technology.
What about alternatives and potential redundancy from the rapid advances in technology ?
The system provides an infrastructure that has been conceived from the initial design as being open to technological development. It is important to recognise that the establishment of the infrastructure is the permanent and essential aspect of the system. As such, technological upgrades only add benefits to the capability of the system. This means that the system itself is both highly flexible and future proof.
The most likely contender for rapid and sustained information gathering operations has been identified as coming from a new generation of nano-satellites. These will have useful aspects but also considerable limitations compared to a permanent Rescue Robotics system. These include,
a) a limited rapid response capability. It is estimated from current figures that the new breed of nano-satellites will be able to provide a coverage at a maximum of every twelve hours ... in good weather conditions.
b) satellites struggle to provide all-weather capability, being highly restricted and even negated by cloud cover conditions.
c) they have limited data resolution, limited sensor options and carry non-upgradeable payloads and sensors.
d) cannot provide persistent localised operations due to the inherent transient nature of their flight paths.
e) offer information that is not independently obtained, secured, analysed and transmitted
What about the cost .... and why doesn't the government pay for it ?
Before talking about cost we need to identify that, despite the name, the Rescue Robotics system is not just about Emergency Response. Yes, this is the primary purpose of the system but a powerful economic driver is the non-emergency activities that this system will carry out.
Let's look at it this way, how many people complain about the cost of their local Fire Stations or Fire Trucks ? Well, what if those vehicles not only attended emergency events to save lives but when they weren't doing that they could somehow help local farmers grow their crops, capture data on the environmental impacts of climate change, provide a temporary communication link when people in remote locations lose cellular connectivity or search for a local person who has gone missing, What would the cost-value consideration become of having those, initially task specific vehicles, do all this other great work ?
One of the big problems around financing this type of system is identifying who is going to pay for it. Having such a multi-faceted system actually makes it very difficult to get the financial backing of any specific government organisation. No matter how crazy this seems we need to understand how government organisations work. All government departments have their own budgets to consider and these budgets are focused on achieving benefits for their specific operational targets. Put it this way, do you think that the Fire Service should pay for a system that helps farmers grow crops ? Of course not. They have enough trouble squeezing finances out of their budgets to address their own specific challenges . They will very likely fully support the idea of tools that help the local farmers but this isn't their job and this capability suddenly makes the Rescue Robotics system not specifically a Fire Service tool and this makes presenting it in, what is likely an already stretched budget, rather tricky. Even when the system offers increased capability to a multitude of other Emergency Services it still makes it difficult for them to finance a system as the inevitable question is "why should we be the ones paying for other Emergency Services tools". The problem isn't the goodwill of the various parties, rather it's a financing structure issue.
When it comes to national level Emergency Event response we like to point out that one Micro-Hangar, able to service the area of a major city on a permanent long term basis, will cost the same as a one hour flight of a military helicopter. We have been told by some government departments, "that's the military's budget - not ours". The fact is that all government departments activities are paid for by the tax payer and the more benefit we can get from any system, the better value for money it is for all of us. Never is this more relevant during national scale Emergency Events.
Rescue Robotics is a system that offers substantial benefit for all Emergency Services but not only that it has massive economic implications for local communities who can benefit from the same technology but may not have the financial resources to invest in a separate system that offers this capability. When we consider the wide ranging financial implications of this multi-faceted system, the cost is cheaper than a system that could achieve even a small percentage of these tasks.
The Rescue Robotics system can be seen as a way of democratising the benefits of UAS and their advanced sensors. What we really need is a collaborative approach between all government agencies to supporting this system and a fresh approach to consider this new and exciting methodology, but this isn't as easy as it seems.