Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2303.02053v1

In this paper, the authors investigate the requirements for preparing an application for Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA), which is regulated by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and is necessary to obtain flight authorization for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) operations. They propose perspectives to automate the SORA approach based on their successful application. The preparation of SORA requires expert knowledge due to its technicalities, and the entire process is iterative and time-consuming. This becomes even more challenging for higher-risk operations, such as those in urban environments, near airports, and involving multi- and customized models for research activities. The authors present a SORA example, review the steps involved, and highlight the challenges faced during the process. To address these challenges and streamline the process, they propose an alternative workflow that incorporates additional documents into the original SORA methodology workflow. By implementing these additional documents presented in Section IV-A, they aim to avoid time-consuming iterations. They also mention that there is a possibility to choose a Specific Assurance Integrity Level (SAIL) category based on available mitigations and adapt the operation to satisfy required ground and air risk classes. However, they note that this approach is suitable only for specific operations rather than generic ones. Additionally, in Section IV-B, they propose an envisioned automated alternative approach to further simplify the process. They suggest encapsulating most of the steps into computer software that can be followed by applicants. This automated approach involves programming Table I to allow users to insert operation location and UAV specifications in order to compute initial Ground Risk Class (GRC). It also provides automatic options for GRC mitigation means so that users can choose possible mitigations to achieve final GRC. Similarly, an EU-level database can be used with given coordinates of operation area to calculate initial Airspace Risk Class (ARC), taking into account Table III. Users are then provided with mitigation means options and examples which upon selection determine final ARC value as well as addressing containment requirements if needed. The Specific Assurance and Integrity Level (SAIL) can also be automatically determined based on chosen area of operation by identifying adjacent areas/airspace if enhanced containment is necessary. The program presents users with a list of required Operational Safety Objectives (OSOs) along with associated robustness levels that need to be addressed providing ideas/examples how each OSO could be met criteria set up by EASA regulations at last summarizing application in form of safety portfolio ready for submission . The authors acknowledge that there may be updates in guidelines for SORA 2.5 such as using U-space structures/rules which could impose additional requirements when preparing applications but still believe proposed automated approach could still be used taking into account updated parts . In conclusion , this paper thoroughly investigates process of obtaining outdoor flight authorization through SORA requirements highlighting challenges , issues , pitfalls in workflow proposing alternative approach shortening entire process while providing comprehensive list of preliminary procedures suggesting automated workflow implemented as computer software assisting UAV operators/researchers eliminating difficulties/delays when conducting intended operations .

• - The authors investigate the requirements for preparing an application for Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA) regulated by EASA
• - SORA is necessary to obtain flight authorization for UAV operations
• - The preparation of SORA requires expert knowledge and is iterative and time-consuming
• - Higher-risk operations in urban environments, near airports, and involving multi- and customized models pose additional challenges
• - An alternative workflow incorporating additional documents is proposed to streamline the process and avoid iterations
• - Specific Assurance Integrity Level (SAIL) category can be chosen based on available mitigations to satisfy required risk classes
• - An automated approach is proposed, involving computer software to compute Ground Risk Class (GRC) and Airspace Risk Class (ARC)
• - The program provides options for mitigation means and containment requirements if needed
• - Operational Safety Objectives (OSOs) with associated robustness levels need to be addressed according to EASA regulations
• - Updates in guidelines may impose additional requirements, but the proposed automated approach can still be used

The authors are studying how to make an application for a special kind of safety assessment for flying drones. This assessment is needed to get permission to fly the drones. Making this assessment requires a lot of knowledge and takes time. Flying drones in places like cities, near airports, or with different kinds of models is even harder. The authors suggest a new way to make the assessment faster and easier. They also talk about choosing different levels of safety based on how risky the drone flights are. They propose using computer software to help calculate the risks and come up with ways to make the flights safer. There are rules that need to be followed when it comes to making sure the flights are safe, and sometimes these rules change, but the proposed new way can still be used." Definitions- Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA): A special kind of safety assessment for flying drones. - EASA: European Union Aviation Safety Agency, an organization that makes rules for aviation safety in Europe. - UAV: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, another name for a drone. - Iterative: Doing something over and over again until it is right. - Mitigations: Actions taken to reduce or prevent risks. - Ground Risk Class (GRC): A measure of how risky it is to fly a drone on the ground. - Airspace Risk Class (ARC): A measure of how risky it is to fly a drone in the air. - Operational Safety Objectives (OSOs): Goals for making sure drone flights

Understanding the Requirements for Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA) to Obtain Flight Authorization for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)

Unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, are becoming increasingly popular in a variety of industries and applications. In order to operate these vehicles safely and legally, operators must obtain flight authorization from the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). This is done through a process called Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA), which requires expert knowledge due to its technicalities and can be time-consuming and challenging. In this paper, the authors investigate the requirements for preparing an application for SORA and propose perspectives to automate the SORA approach based on their successful application. They present a SORA example, review the steps involved, highlight challenges faced during the process, and propose an alternative workflow that incorporates additional documents into the original SORA methodology workflow. Additionally, they suggest encapsulating most of these steps into computer software that could assist UAV operators/researchers in eliminating difficulties/delays when conducting intended operations.

The Process of Preparing an Application for SORA

The preparation of an application for SORA requires expert knowledge due to its technicalities. The entire process is iterative and time-consuming; this becomes even more challenging for higher-risk operations such as those in urban environments near airports or involving multi-and customized models for research activities. The authors present a detailed example of how one might go about preparing an application for SORA by reviewing each step involved: 1) Identifying operation location – This involves determining where exactly you will be operating your UAV so that you can calculate initial Ground Risk Class (GRC). 2) Identifying UAV specifications – This includes providing information about your vehicle’s weight class, speed range etc., so that you can determine initial Airspace Risk Class (ARC). 3) Mitigating GRC & ARC – You must then choose possible mitigations to achieve final GRC & ARC values as well as addressing containment requirements if needed. 4) Determining SAIL category – You may also choose a Specific Assurance Integrity Level (SAIL) category based on available mitigations and adapt your operation accordingly so it satisfies required ground & air risk classes. However, this approach is suitable only for specific operations rather than generic ones. 5) Addressing OSOs – Finally you must address Operational Safety Objectives (OSOs), along with associated robustness levels set up by EASA regulations at last summarizing application in form of safety portfolio ready submission .

Challenges Faced During Preparation

The authors note several challenges faced during preparation: firstly there is often not enough information available regarding certain aspects such as airspace restrictions or local regulations; secondly some parts require manual calculations which can be tedious; thirdly there may be discrepancies between different sources leading to confusion; fourthly there may be delays due to lack of communication between stakeholders; fifthly there may be changes in guidelines over time making it difficult to keep up with them all; finally some parts require expertise which many users do not have access too . All these issues make it difficult and time consuming when trying to prepare an application successfully .

Proposed Automated Alternative Approach

To address these challenges ,the authors proposed automated alternative approach further simplifying process . It involves programming Table I allowing users insert operation location & UAV specifications computing initial GRC while providing automatic options mitigation means achieving final GRC . Similarly EU level database used given coordinates operation area calculating initial ARC taking into account Table III providing mitigation means options examples upon selection determining final ARC value addressing containment requirements needed . SAIL automatically determined based chosen area operation identifying adjacent areas/airspace enhanced containment necessary program presenting list required OSOs associated robustness levels need addressed ideas/examples how each OSO met criteria set EASA regulations last summarizing application form safety portfolio ready submission . Authors acknowledge updates guidelines SORA 2.5 using USpace structures rules imposing additional requirements preparing applications still believe proposed automated approach still used taking account updated parts .

Conclusion

In conclusion , this paper thoroughly investigates process obtaining outdoor flight authorization through SOR