Advanced Ground Vehicle Technologies for Airside Operations (2020)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

122 This chapter provides a summary of key findings. This discussion includes enabling tech- nologies and infrastructure needs to support future AGVT deployment, AGVT applications currently in use and coming online, summary results of the detailed evaluations of selected airside AGVT applications, and key thoughts on lessons learned from other technology deploy- ments that will support airside AGVT implementation. The final section of this chapter provides recommendations for research needs and priorities for AGVT. Enabling Technologies and Infrastructure Needs The specific enabling technologies and infrastructure needs vary depending on the AGVT and application. Enabling technologies and infrastructure that are common for multiple AGVT include the following: • Sensor technologies that have demonstrated reliability in the airfield environment (e.g., can detect and recognize aircraft wings of different sizes and at different heights), • A robust communications network wherever the AGVT will operate, • A detailed GIS airfield map, and • Reliable GPS data. AGVT sensor technologies such as LiDAR, radar, and camera systems have been developed with extensive testing in the roadway environment. A key issue for success of airside AGVT is the accuracy and reliability of the sensors in the airside environment. Aircraft wings may present challenges due to their height, the varying height for different aircraft, and their aerodynamic design, which may affect the sensor signal. The communications network needs to be robust and may be a mesh network that utilizes either WiFi or 4G/5G service, depending on the location. The communications network must support oversight, alerts, and two-way communication between AGVT and the operations center. In some cases, the network will also need to support communication between multiple vehicles. Current and accurate AGVT location information is important for safe operations and path following using GIS and GPS. A detailed GIS map provides location confirmation through the use of airport imagery. Location by GPS depends on a reliable and accurate signal wherever the AGVT operates. Integrity and accuracy of the GPS signal is important not only for pathfinding for an individual vehicle, but also to support collaboration and obstacle avoidance in areas where there are multiple AGVT vehicles. Other airport infrastructure, such as clearly delineated painted lines and well-maintained airport signs, are also important, but their presence and maintenance are consistent with current Part 139 certification requirements. It is important to note that enabling technologies and infra- structure needs may change as technologies advance. C H A P T E R 7 Summary of Key Findings and Further Research

Summary of Key Findings and Further Research 123 The most significant limitations with respect to national infrastructure relate to the lack of clear requirements and standards for airfield AGVT, for technology requirements, inter- operability, and compatibility with other airside technologies that exist and will be deployed in the future. The lack of a clear framework for regulatory approval (e.g., from FAA and FCC) also presents challenges. One successful strategy for progress is for vendors to partner with an airport to work through the approval process, but in many cases, the framework for approval is not always well defined, clearly communicated, or widely available. Since many technology vendors are from the private sector and do not have airport experience, the potential obstacles (cost and time and uncertainty) associated with obtaining the necessary regulatory approval from FAA may be a significant deterrent. As noted by one European engineer, the technology cannot be used on an airfield until it is certified by FAA, but it is difficult to get certification without demonstrating the capabilities on the airfield. Regulatory burden may also require approval by agencies other than FAA. Since regulations are different around the world, AGVT may be easier to implement in other countries. One vendor with equipment installed at an airfield in Europe said that the same equipment cannot be installed in the United States since the European safety regulations are less stringent in remote areas of the airfield where public access is not allowed. These installations in other countries may provide data to support future approval in the United States. Applications Currently in Use and Coming Online There are a number of AGVT that have been deployed in other sectors and at airports in other countries; these applications may be the first to come online at airports in the United States. AGVT applications that have been reported to be currently in use elsewhere and may come online soon in the United States include: • Automated mowing (Sola Airport in Norway), • Automated perimeter security (Indianapolis Motor Speedway and Ben Gurion Airport in Israel), • Remote from cockpit taxi to departure runway (previously at Frankfort Airport, now being deployed in India at Delhi Airport and Mumbai Airport), • Remote from ramp aircraft pushback (Heathrow and GA airports), • Autonomous airside employee shuttles (Gatwick), and • Collision avoidance technologies for GSE (SmartSense belt loaders at various locations, which are consistent with IATA recommendations for cargo loaders, passenger stairs and catering trucks). AGVT that may be coming online soon in the United States and have been investigated in airport trials and deployed in other sectors include: • AVs to move cargo containers (CargoPod at Gatwick and Heathrow), • Automated snowplows (being tested in Norway at Oslo Airport and in Canada at Winnipeg Airport), and • AVs to move baggage (being used in manufacturing sector and at ports, including TractEasy and TuSimple). Summary of AGVT Evaluation Results There are a number of AGVT applications that are appropriate for implementation as an investigation, demonstration project, or for full deployment. The proposed implementation framework reflects the permanence of the project, maturity of the technology, and expected impact on airport operations. • Full deployment. Applications that will utilize relatively mature technologies are recom- mended for full deployment on a permanent basis.

124 Advanced Ground Vehicle Technologies for Airside Operations • Demonstration. Applications that utilize AGVT that have not been proven in the airside envi- ronment or require some refinement are recommended for implementation as a demonstra- tion. A demonstration is implemented on a trial basis for a limited time with a scope designed to have minimal disruption to ongoing airside operations. A demonstration will be closely monitored to ensure safety. • Investigation. Applications that utilize AGVT with a lower TRL are recommended as an investigation. An investigation is implemented on a temporary basis with the intent to collect data and learn more about the capabilities and limitations in support of future activities. Airside applications of AGVT include activities to support airport operations, as well as ramp and aircraft activities. AGVT for implementation to support airport operations include the following: • Safety assist with ADS-B transponder for FOD management (full deployment), • Automated for FOD management with safety driver (demonstration), • Automated mower with no driver (full deployment), • Snowplow platoon with a driver in the lead and one platooned vehicle (demonstration), • Remote operation of a snowplow at a GA airport (demonstration), and • Automated perimeter security with no driver (full deployment). AGVT for implementation to support ramp and aircraft activities include the following: • Remote from cockpit operation of aircraft tug for taxi to departure runway (demonstration), • Remote from ramp operation of aircraft tug for pushback (demonstration), and • Safety assist for baggage tug and baggage carts (full deployment). Safety Assist with ADS-B Transponder for FOD Management Full deployment Safety assist includes RIPS, collision avoidance, lane-keeping assist, with appropriate warnings and automated braking when needed. Operational Area. The operational area includes runways, taxiways, and aprons for which the airport is responsible for regular inspections under Part 139. Airport Characteristics. Safety assist with ADS-B transponders for FOD management would be most appropriate at airports with a higher risk of runway incursions (e.g., numerous runway intersections or hot spots or frequent employee turnover) and/or ground vehicle acci- dents. ADS-B transponders may be appropriate at large airports where the expense is eligible for AIP and PFC funds. Smaller airports that cannot use AIP funds for ADS-B transponders may wish to use GPS transponders that are not ADS-B to reduce costs. Project Partners. AGVT equipment vendors, technology vendors for airfield equipment, airport tenants that contribute to FOD, and aeronautical users that are vulnerable to FOD damage may be appropriate partners for the proposed deployment. Key Considerations • Benefits. Benefits for safety assist with ADS-B transponders include increased airfield safety due to reduced runway incursions and reduced potential for damage due to collisions, increased situational awareness due to the use of ADS-B systems, and useful data to support future airside AGVT. • Technical feasibility. Safety assist technologies have been used on commercial passenger vehicles and are readily available (TRL 8 or 9), and RIPS based on GPS location have been successfully deployed. Technologies for collision avoidance need to be verified in the airfield

Summary of Key Findings and Further Research 125 environment where aircraft may present different challenges due to the height (and variable height) of aircraft wings. • Operational impacts. There would be no expected changes in operational procedures for safety assist. Operational impacts may include a reduction in runway incursions and ground vehicle collisions. • Infrastructure impacts. Safety assist requires ground markings to identify the functional zone and corresponding actions (e.g., taxi lanes, runway threshold, and runways) for confirmation of the information provided by GPS and the airport GIS map. Location information also supports geofencing to ensure safe operation. • Stakeholder acceptance and ease of adoption. Safety assist is likely to be well accepted and easy to adopt since many of the features are common in personal vehicles, warnings have been approved by FAA for RIPS, and the driver maintains responsibility for vehicle operation. • Human factors. For safety assist, the human factors considerations are positive since the driver assist functions support driver safety but maintain operator responsibility for driving, commu- nications with ATCT, and other standard procedures. Potential Challenges. There are no expected challenges for the deployment of safety assist technology to FOD inspections. Automated FOD Management with Safety Driver Demonstration project The automated vehicle follows a designated path to ensure full coverage of the operational area using an FAA-approved FOD equipment (e.g., a mobile FOD collection system or sweeper). The driver would be in the vehicle to take over if needed and provide radio communications with the ATC. Operational Area. The operational area includes runways, taxiways, and aprons for which the airport is responsible for regular inspections under Part 139. Airport Characteristics. Automation with a safety driver for FOD management would provide the most benefits at airports that require frequent FOD inspections and have significant commercial activities. Project Partners. AGVT equipment vendors, technology vendors for airfield equipment, airport tenants that contribute to FOD, and aeronautical users that are vulnerable to FOD damage may be appropriate partners for the proposed deployment. Key Considerations • Benefits. Benefits include the potential for increased safety, faster and more reliable FOD inspections, an increased ability of the safety driver to provide an FOD visual inspection, and useful data to support future airside AGVT. • Technical feasibility. AVs with safety driver have been successfully deployed in limited geo- graphic areas in the roadway environment (TRL 8 or 9). Technologies for collision avoidance need to be verified in the airfield environment where aircraft may present different challenges due to the height (and variable height) of aircraft wings. • Operational impacts. Operational impacts may include faster and more reliable time for FOD detection and retrieval, which would have a positive impact on airport efficiency and capacity. • Infrastructure impacts. Ground markings to confirm the functional zone and corresponding actions (e.g., runway threshold) provide confirmation of the information provided by GPS

126 Advanced Ground Vehicle Technologies for Airside Operations and the airport GIS map. A higher definition GIS airport map with a layer of high-resolution imagery would be required for vehicle localization by matching landmarks. • Stakeholder acceptance and ease of adoption. Automated FOD detection with a safety driver would require regulatory approval from the FAA and FCC before implementation, reducing ease of adoption. Airports in locations where automated vehicle testing has been deployed on city streets (e.g., in states such as California, Arizona, Ohio and Michigan) may have greater acceptance of new technologies. • Human factors. For AVs with safety driver, the most important human factors consideration is the ability of the safety driver to take over control when needed. Since FOD inspection does not require significant interactions with other vehicles or equipment or personnel (other than approval from ATCT), the human factors considerations are simplified. Potential Challenges. The greatest potential challenges for the deployment of AV with safety driver are the uncertainty regarding the automation capabilities in the airside environment where there are fewer environmental cues than in the roadside, and the capability of the safety driver to maintain situational awareness and take over control if needed. Automated Mowers with No Driver Full deployment of electric low-profile mowers Each automated mower operates independently in a limited geographic area during specific hours. Control is via an onboard computer with the capability for remote oversight and commands (non-emergency) from a computer or cell phone. Operational Area. The operational area includes remote areas with relatively low grades where there are no NAVAIDs or other critical infrastructure. Upon confirmation of operating characteristics, mowing operations could move to areas closer to the runway, with an ultimate goal of operation in the RSA (smaller mowers that can be demonstrated frangible may be appropriate in the RSA). The proposed deployment does not encompass automation for crossing runways or taxiways, which may be necessary for some mowing areas and would present challenges. Airport Characteristics. Automated mowers may be utilized at any size airport, commercial or GA, that mows turf on relatively low grades. The potential for solar power AGVT mowing may be particularly attractive to airports that prioritize sustainability. Project Partners. Companies that provide robotic mowing equipment (e.g., Echo Robotics, Husqvarna, John Deere) may be good potential partners for AGVT mowing. Airport tenants that have responsibility for mowing airside turf (e.g., FBOs) may also be appropriate project partners. Key Considerations • Benefits. The benefits of automated mowing include reduced personnel requirements, reduced environmental impacts, reduced energy costs, reduced operating costs, removal of personnel from potentially dangerous environments, and capability for night mowing. Auto- mated mowing may also reduce wildlife activity. • Technical feasibility. The technical feasibility of automated mowers with no driver is rela- tively high given deployment in other sectors and at Sola Airport in Norway. A perimeter edge wire system would serve as a hardware backup for the GPS-based software geofencing. • Operational impacts. Operational impacts include greater efficiency, reduced staffing needs, increased safety of personnel, expectation for improved wildlife mitigation, and increased capability for nighttime mowing.

Summary of Key Findings and Further Research 127 • Infrastructure impacts. Automated mowing requires charging stations, boundary wires to define mowing zones, and cellular service for mowing areas. Solar power for charging stations and boundary wires may simplify power requirements in remote areas. • Human factors. Automated mowing reflects appropriate allocation of function due to the repetitious nature of mowing and the lack of interaction with aircraft or other vehicles. • Stakeholder acceptance and ease of adoption. Mowing operates out of the movement and non-movement areas and requires minimal coordination with other stakeholders, which simpli- fies stakeholder acceptance and ease of adoption. Automated mowing needs to be coordinated with a qualified airport wildlife biologist and requires FAA approval. Initiating automated mowing in remote areas will provide data to substantiate operating characteristics, increase ease of adoption, and substantiate future requests for operation in the RSA. Potential Challenges. The greatest challenges for automated mowing are the capital invest- ment for the mowers and power. FAA approval for operation is another potential challenge, although proving capabilities in remote areas will provide data to substantiate operation in the RSA. Snowplow Platoon with Driver in Lead Demonstration with one platooned vehicle following the lead vehicle The lead driver ensures safety, monitors progress of the platoon, can interpret and respond to unexpected circumstances, and communicates with ATC. Operational Area. The operational area includes runways and taxiways closed for snow removal, ramps, and/or access roads. Any areas with aircraft (e.g., ramps with parked aircraft or active runways or taxiways) will be excluded. Airport Characteristics. AGVT snow removal would be of interest to airports that experi- ence moderate or greater levels of snowfall, with greater benefits at airports with challenges staffing winter operations. Testing site can be selected to ensure minimal impact on scheduled air carrier operations—this may suggest a smaller airport, or an unused secondary runway or taxiway at a larger airport. Project Partners. Snow truck manufacturers (e.g., OshKosh snow trucks), automotive manu- facturers and supporting vendors (e.g., Daimler, Mercedes-Benz, and Semcon) and truck platoon vendors (e.g., Peloton Technology and TomTom) may be good partners. Key Considerations • Benefits. Benefits include increased efficiency, reduced labor costs, reduced driver fatigue and increased safety since workers are removed from harsh winter conditions and since the platooned vehicle will have automated braking. • Technical feasibility. Platoon technology has been successfully demonstrated, which suggests that a demonstration at an airport in the United States is feasible. The greatest challenges may be inter-vehicle issues (collision avoidance for following vehicles and latency of the 4G network) and deployment in the airport environment. The following vehicle requires redundant safety- critical sensors for collision avoidance and geofencing, and to ensure a safe exit from safety- critical areas in case of a major malfunction. • Operational impacts. Operational impacts include improved efficiency due to reduced personnel needs. • Infrastructure impacts. A GIS airport map on in-vehicle computers will support software geofencing and allow remote oversight when combined with data from GPS transponders in

128 Advanced Ground Vehicle Technologies for Airside Operations each vehicle. The lead and platoon vehicle communicate using DSRC, so cellular service (or WiFi) coverage is required wherever the SRE will operate to ensure real-time control. • Stakeholder acceptance and ease of adoption. Presence of a lead driver enhances stakeholder acceptance and ease of adoption, simplifies communications with ATC, ensures safety in unexpected conditions, and is functionally analogous to multi-function SRE equipment, which is commonly used and accepted. • Human factors. Key issues include whether the lead driver can manage the workload and main- tain situational awareness. Reduced personnel requirements may reduce the need for overtime and fatigue, a leading cause of accidents and injuries. Potential Challenges. The greatest challenge is that snow removal varies depending on many factors that change quickly (e.g., the kind of snow, wind conditions, air temperature) and decisions such as the appropriate overlap path may reflect driver intuition and experience as well as quan- titative data such as temperature, wind speed, and wind direction. Remote Operation of Snowplow at GA Airport Demonstration of single snowplow with remote initiation and oversight The snowplow operates on a predefined path after initiation via remote command and remote oversight by a person. Operational Area. The operational area includes runways and taxiways closed for snow removal, ramps, and/or access roads. Any areas with aircraft (e.g., ramps with parked aircraft or active runways or taxiways) will be excluded. Airport Characteristics. AGVT snow removal would be of interest to GA airports that experi- ence moderate or greater levels of snowfall, with greater benefits at airports that serve corporate aircraft and have a moderate amount of traffic but do not have control towers. Project Partners. Snow truck manufacturers (e.g., OshKosh snow trucks) as well as auto- motive manufacturers and supporting vendors (e.g., Daimler, Mercedes-Benz and Semcon) may be good partners. Key Considerations • Benefits. Benefits include increased efficiency, reduced labor costs, reduced driver fatigue, and increased safety as workers are removed from harsh winter conditions and there is increased service due to increased accessibility of GA airports in winter. • Technical feasibility. Analogous technologies are widely used for the remote and automated operation of UAS. Although this application provides the capability for remote oversight and response, there is no expectation for emergency intervention since the runway would be closed for snow removal with an accompanying NOTAM. Since the snowplow does not have a driver, redundant safety-critical sensors for collision avoidance and geofencing ensure the snowplow can exit the safety-critical area and stop in case of a major malfunction. • Operational impacts. Operational impacts include improved efficiency due to the reduced personnel needs and increased capability for GA airport service following a snowfall. • Infrastructure impacts. A GIS airport map on in-vehicle computers will support software geofencing and allow remote oversight when combined with data from GPS transponders in each vehicle. The lead and platoon vehicle communicate using DSRC, so cellular service (or WiFi) coverage is required wherever the SRE will operate to ensure real-time control. • Stakeholder acceptance and ease of adoption. Presence of a lead driver enhances stake- holder acceptance and ease of adoption, simplifies communications with ATC, ensures safety

Summary of Key Findings and Further Research 129 in unexpected conditions, and is functionally analogous to multi-function SRE equipment, which is commonly used and accepted. • Human factors. Key issues include whether the lead driver can manage the workload and maintain situational awareness. Reduced personnel requirements may reduce the need for overtime and fatigue, a leading cause of accidents and injuries. Potential Challenges. The greatest challenge is that snow removal varies depending on many factors that change quickly (e.g., the kind of snow and wind conditions, air temperature) and decisions such as the appropriate overlap path may reflect driver intuition and experience as well as quantitative data such as temperature, wind speed, and wind direction. Automated Perimeter Security with No Driver Full deployment Automated perimeter security allows regular inspections using camera and thermal images as the automated vehicle travels a designated path to ensure the fence, gates, and locks are secure from wildlife and unauthorized people for compliance with Part 139 and TSR 1542. The AGVT alerts airport operations and security if there is a discrepancy, and enables video and audio communication between the remote operator and people near the vehicle. The vehicle can also be used for sentry duty. Operational Area. The operational area is the perimeter path and does not include the RSA, movement area, non-movement area or other areas with aircraft. This may limit compatibility with some airports. Airport Characteristics. Automated perimeter security would be useful at airports that conduct multiple perimeter inspections a day and at commercial airports or GA airports with increased security risks in which the perimeter terrain is compatible with vehicle capabilities. Project Partners. TSA, airport law enforcement, airport tenants with increased security requirements, technology developers that support defense, and oil and gas sectors (leaders in security protection) may be good project partners. Key Considerations • Benefits. Potential benefits include increased efficiency of perimeter inspections, decreased operational costs, reduced labor requirements, increased capabilities for sentry duty, and increased safety for airport personnel. The AGVT can safely gain information about a poten- tially dangerous situation and provide information to help ensure an appropriate response. • Technical feasibility. Technical feasibility is high and reflects implementation in other sectors and at foreign airports. Limiting factors may include a lack of features tailored to airports (e.g., proven wildlife management capabilities) and lack of data regarding equipment capa- bilities and reliability. AGVT includes software geofencing to constrain the area of operation. • Operational impacts. Operational impacts include increased efficiency due to reduced personnel requirements, increased capabilities for sentry duties, and increased capabilities for both operations and security personnel to simultaneously view vehicle video and audio feed in real time. • Infrastructure impacts. A high-resolution GIS map and communications (4G-LTE or 5G) are required. Additional transmitters may be required for remote areas of large airfields. The automated vehicle can follow the same path currently used for a conventional vehicle. • Stakeholder acceptance and ease of adoption. There are no significant issues expected for AGVT perimeter security. The greatest challenge may be documentation of the system

130 Advanced Ground Vehicle Technologies for Airside Operations capabilities and safety to facilitate acceptance by FAA for compliance with Part 139 require- ments and by TSA for compliance with Part 1542 requirements. • Human factors. Interaction with the remote operator and people that the vehicle may encounter are the greatest considerations, and require well-designed CHI. Automated perimeter secu- rity is an appropriate allocation of function since it a fairly simple repetitive task, and does not require complex operational procedures or coordination with other employees, vehicles, or aircraft. Potential Challenges. Potential challenges include rough terrain, extreme weather, RF inter- ference, regulatory approval (FAA and TSA), and cybersecurity. Documentation of system capabilities would be necessary to assure that removing the physical presence and capabilities of a human (e.g., peripheral vision, sense of smell) does not reduce overall situational awareness or security. Remote from Cockpit Operation of Aircraft Tug Demonstration Remote from cockpit operation of the aircraft tug allows the aircraft pilot to control the tug using the standard cockpit controls after pushback for travel to the departure runway. Operational Area. The operational area is between the terminal (after pushback) and the runway, including the ramp and taxiways in the non-movement and movement area. Airport Characteristics. Remote from cockpit would be most appropriate at large airports where the taxi time is long due to distance and/or aircraft queues, and where sustainability is an important goal. Project Partners. Airlines, GSE providers, and ground service providers would be appro- priate partners. Key Considerations • Benefits. The benefits of remote from cockpit for taxi include reduced aircraft fuel consump- tion, reduced emissions, reduced aircraft engine time, reduced risk of FOD damage, and increased gate availability since aircraft engine start up can occur during the taxi to the runway. • Technical feasibility. Technical feasibility for remote aircraft pushback and remote from cockpit taxi is high since the technology has been successfully deployed at other airports. • Operational impacts. For remote from cockpit taxi, the tug worker must connect and dis- connect the communications line after taxi, and procedures must be developed for these transitions as well as for aircraft start up during taxi. Plans for removal of a disabled tug to minimize operational disruption would be needed. • Infrastructure impacts. Infrastructure impacts for remote from cockpit taxi include roadways to return tugs to the terminal and charging stations, if electric tugs are used. It may be possible to use existing access roads, although they may need to be reinforced to accommodate the heavier vehicle weight. Although not infrastructure, the capital cost of the tug equipment is significant. • Human factors. Use of existing cockpit controls reduces the human factors issues. Human factors considerations related to additional users in the movement area are reduced because the tug is connected to the aircraft and of less concern on access roads because there is no associated threat to aircraft. • Stakeholder acceptance and ease of adoption. Stakeholder acceptance and ease of adoption would be impacted by regulatory issues and labor considerations, as well as pilot acceptance and support from airlines. Pilot acceptance may be eased since responsibility remains with the

Summary of Key Findings and Further Research 131 pilot, who uses standard cockpit controls to operate the tug; this framework also supports ease of use. Regulatory obstacles are reduced for some vendors. For example, TaxiBot has already received FAA certification, although it has not been used in the United States. At Frankfurt Airport in Germany, pilot use was voluntary and decided at the terminal gate for each departure, which facilitated acceptance and ease of adoption. Potential Challenges. The greatest challenge may be financial as new tugs would be expen- sive. The benefit of reduced fuel costs is not as great when fuel costs are low and the benefit of reduced emissions may correlate with a strong financial benefit in the United States. Remote from Ramp Aircraft Pushback Demonstration that allows remote operation of electric tugs for aircraft pushback in the gate area Remote operation of the aircraft tug allows a ramp agent to control an electric tug while standing on the ramp. Operational Area. The operational area is the ramp area, which is a non-movement area. Initial deployment is not recommended for gates that push back into a taxi in the movement area. Airport Characteristics. Remote pushback may be used at either GA airports or commercial service airports. Project Partners. Airlines, ground service providers and FBOs at GA airports would be appropriate partners since these organizations own aircraft and employ those responsible for aircraft pushback and taxi. Key Considerations • Benefits. Potential benefits for remote pushback include reduced emissions, reduced damage, and increased safety due to better visibility. Remote pushback may increase efficiency by making pushback operations more consistent and reducing turn times. • Technical feasibility. The technical feasibility for remote aircraft pushback is high since the technology has been successfully deployed at other airports. • Operational impacts. Remote pushback would increase capacity and efficiency to the extent that delay is reduced. Slight changes to operational procedures may be required, although operation from the ramp increases safety and monitoring capability. • Infrastructure impacts. Infrastructure impacts for remote pushback would be minimal, although the capital cost of the equipment would be significant. Charging stations would be needed for electric tugs. • Human factors. Remote from ramp pushback is quick to learn and easy to use, which reflects strong human factors design. • Stakeholder acceptance and ease of adoption. Stakeholder acceptance and ease of adoption would be impacted by regulatory issues and labor considerations, including contract restric- tions. For remote pushback, responsibility remains with ramp personnel and uses the same size crew, which would facilitate acceptance and ease of adoption. Regulatory issues include the need for FAA equipment certification and approval for operations. Initial deployment for maintenance or repositioning (without passengers) may reduce regulatory obstacles and overall risk while providing a safe framework to explore system capabilities. For aircraft pushback, all activities occur on the ramp, which is a non-movement area and outside the jurisdiction of ATC, which may simplify adoption. Displacement of ramp workers is unlikely as the complexity of ramp activities requires a number of manual tasks and manual confirmation of automation, which are not easily replaced by automation.

132 Advanced Ground Vehicle Technologies for Airside Operations Potential Challenges. The greatest challenges may be financial, since new tugs would be expensive and the benefits are not proven, or clearly seen by passengers. Other challenges include regulatory approval for air carrier operations with passengers on board. Safety Assist for Baggage Tug and Baggage Carts Full deployment Safety assist for baggage tug and baggage carts includes collision avoidance, lane keeping, variable speed limits, and geofencing based on vehicle GPS location. Operational Area. The operational area is everywhere the baggage tug and carts travel, typically the non-movement area including the ramp, aircraft envelope, access roads between terminals, and in or near the terminal to collect and drop off passenger baggage. Airport Characteristics. Safety assist for baggage carts would be most valuable at larger commercial airports where baggage carts traverse longer distances on airport access roads, including airports that require travel between terminals and at airports where baggage carts operate in congested and constrained areas. Project Partners. Partners may include vehicle companies, GSE providers, and technology firms. Ford may be a good partner since the Eagle Bobtail Tractor commonly used on airfields is built on a Ford chassis and Ford is active in AGVT development. GSE companies such as Textron (manufacturer of the SmartSense belt loader) and Cavotec (GSE provider and developer of auto- mated systems for ports) and software companies such as GroundStar may be good partners. Key Considerations • Benefits. Benefits of baggage tugs and carts with safety assist functions include improved airport safety, fewer crashes, reduced damage, and the potential for increased efficiency if operations are improved by using historic and real-time GPS data. The proposed safety assist technology would improve airport safety by ensuring compliance with airport speed restrictions. • Operational impacts. Operational impacts include improved safety and the potential for improved efficiency, since GPS data can be used to track and support efficient resource allocation. • Infrastructure impacts. Infrastructure impacts are minimal, assuming the operating area has good coverage for the GPS signal. A central computer and supporting software could be used to monitor the fleet of baggage tugs. Supervisor oversight should include mobile capa- bilities such as a cell phone app to ensure compatibility with other responsibilities and access to information when it is needed. • Technical feasibility. The technical feasibility of safety assist technologies for baggage tugs and carts is high since safety assist technologies have been widely implemented with success in the roadway sector. Confirmation is needed for operation in the airside environment, including the algorithms for issues related to trailing carts, path following capabilities, and tipping potential, which reflect complex dynamics that vary depending on the load and center of gravity for each cart. The mounting position and angle of obstacle sensors may need adjustment to ensure detection of aircraft and that other airside obstacles are not present in the roadway sector. • Stakeholder acceptance and ease of adoption. Stakeholder acceptance and ease of adoption for safety assist for baggage tugs and carts is facilitated by the fact that it will not affect labor requirements or require approval from FAA. There may be some resistance from workers due to the inclusion of a GPS component (which allows the driver location to be tracked). If employees are required to wear smart watches that include GPS capabilities (as reported by one airline), GPS equipment tracking should not be an issue.

Summary of Key Findings and Further Research 133 • Human factors. Many of the human factors considerations for safety assist have been addressed because of extensive and successful deployment in the roadside environment. Operators must understand the functions and limitations of each safety assist feature. Potential Challenges. The greatest challenge is the need to demonstrate technical capabilities and benefits of safety assist in the airside environment. Key Thoughts and Lessons Learned Lessons learned from AGVT applications in other industries and AGVT deployment at airports in other countries may benefit airside deployment in the United States. Lessons learned from deployment in other countries and other technology deployments in the United States suggest that an excellent framework for advancement is partnerships between airports, airlines, technology vendors, and universities. This model has been successful to advance remote from cockpit taxiing (TaxiBot and Lufthansa at Frankfort and now TaxiBot and Delhi Airport), and automated snowplows (Yeti and SRE manufacturer Øveraasen in partnership with Avinor, a Norwegian airport operator company), as well as the integration of UAS at airports (Woolpert, FAA and Savannah/Hilton Head Airport). The deployment of UAS at airports for airport operations activities demonstrates that regulatory challenges should not be considered insurmountable obstacles, and illustrates the value of having an airport stakeholder as a champion for shepherding the technology through the FAA process. Deployment of AGVT in the roadway sector also illustrates the value of partnerships between technology vendors, universities and local and state government agencies. The testing of AGVT in Pittsburg (Carnegie Mellon), Ann Arbor (University of Michigan), and Virginia (Virginia Tech) illustrates the value that university and educational alliances may provide for technology advance- ments. Similarly, the extensive and concentrated testing in Phoenix illustrates the importance of the role of local and state government in creating an environment to facilitate technology advancement. States and cities may also require vendors to provide performance data and oper- ational data for new technologies operating in their jurisdiction. For example, the State of California as well as the City of Los Angeles have led the way in requiring technology and trans- portation vendors to provide relevant data from AGVT deployments (e.g., miles of operation and disengagement data) and dockless scooters (e.g., operational data). This data supports informed public policy and safety decisions. Previous technology deployments at airports have demonstrated the importance, value, and safety of scaled deployments, including the successful opening of Heathrow Terminal 2 (discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3) and the AGVT investigations previously discussed, such as CargoPod at Heathrow and Automated Snowplows in Norway. Airports are also creating innovation committees and appointing innovation directors, which may support the implemen- tation of new technologies such as AGVT. Recommendations for Research Needs and Priorities AGVT has the potential to increase airside efficiency and capacity, and additional research is necessary to better understand the potential benefits and limitations of deployment in the airside environment. AGVT may be useful to improve the operation of existing airports, as realized with automated perimeter security at Ben Gurion Airport in Israel, and for integration into the design and construction of new terminals, as will be evident at Changi’s Terminal 5 in Singapore, scheduled for completion by 2030. A variety of new technologies tested in Changi’s Terminal 4 will be included in Terminal 5, increasing the capacity and efficiency. This section identifies research needs and priorities to advance AGVT in the airside environment in the United States.

134 Advanced Ground Vehicle Technologies for Airside Operations Research Priorities The following research projects address enabling technologies and infrastructure to support airside AGVT. These research needs are considered top priorities. • AGVT Sensor Capabilities in Airside Environment. Develop standards for sensor capabili- ties for object detection in the airside environment. Supporting activities may include the following: – Investigate the limits of sensors designed for roadway use in the airside environment, including capabilities of LiDAR and other sensors to detect aircraft wings and other objects unique to the airside environment. – Determine whether it would be appropriate to designate sensor capabilities and limits rela- tive to existing airport visibility frames of reference, such as visibility less than 1,200 ft runway visual range as currently defined for airport Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems (SMGCS). – Develop best practices for calibration of AGVT sensors in the airside environment. – Confirm current standards for airport markings and signs to assure compatibility with machine vision requirements. • AGVT Communication. Investigate potential airside AGVT communication issues and develop appropriate AGVT communication standards. This would include an examination of potential compatibility issues with respect to other airport communications and activities (existing and future) and determination of whether there is a need to designate and reserve a frequency for AGVT. Supporting activities may include developing V2X standards to support airside deployment reflecting the special needs of the airside environment (e.g., include aircraft height and wingspan in the data communicated). • GIS Airside Maps. Identify requirements and develop appropriate standards for airport GIS maps to support AGVT. • Vehicle Transponders. Vehicle transponders provide accurate GPS location for vehicle path finding and ensure other airport users have accurate location information for collision avoid- ance. This research would develop data standards for airside vehicle transponders (e.g., GPS location, vehicle type, size, owner and operating areas) and employee transponders (e.g., GPS location, employee name, employer, and SIDA information such as security level of access authorized). Early development of a common framework will ensure that AGVT equip- ment developed by different vendors is compatible and will support airside V2X communi- cations requirements and fleet management requirements (including communication between vehicles within a fleet and fleet oversight). Supporting Research Priorities The following research projects would support AGVT application and advancement in the airside environment. • Data. Identify data and data management issues for airside AGVT and make appropriate recommendations regarding standards and airport best practices for standards, record keeping, access, and decisionmaking. Supporting activities may include the following. – Identify expected bandwidth and storage requirements for different technologies and applications. – Identify data management strategies for airside AGVT, especially on refresh, backup and retire strategies. – Develop data standards for airside AGVT that support information sharing and collabora- tive airport decisionmaking. – Develop and publish airside AGVT data sets (analogous to Wildlife Strike Database) to support independent research and advancement of airside AGVT.

Summary of Key Findings and Further Research 135 – Identify an appropriate technical and policy framework for data sharing and data privacy. Potential information may include data about AGVT operations, incidents and accidents. This framework could define core database elements and their organization, as well as a method to request and obtain approval to access to airport data, and a template for incident reporting. – Identify common core data concepts and definitions to standardize data reporting of AGVT applications and operations at airports. This will include definition of the data elements needed for most data use cases including operational, safety and efficiency assessments. – Identify issues related to data privacy and compliance with freedom of information laws that affect AGVT data acquisition, retention and management. – Identify reporting requirements to ensure safe operation including reporting requirements to the airport sponsor, as well as to FAA, TSA and other regulatory entities. – Examine V2X communication standards to determine potential applicability for commu- nication within an AGVT platoon. V2X may also support other communication between AGVT airside vehicles for negotiation and autonomous conflict resolution. • Regulations. Investigate and recommend appropriate airport rules and regulations for AGVT. Supporting activities may include the following. – Investigate the potential impacts of federal, state, and local laws; regulations; and policies on airside AGVT operation. – Provide definitions to ensure a common vocabulary for airside AGVT. Different states have adopted a variety of definitions related to AGVT and operators. These different definitions may cause confusion and affect liability considerations unless airports proactively define terms for operation on airport property. – Identify and reference applicable standards from other organizations (e.g., SAE) and modes (e.g., roadway and ports). – Consider information in the proposed Uniform Automated Operation of Vehicles Act by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws; this provides a common frame of reference for state legislation in the roadway sector. • Simulation Tools. Develop simulation tools for AGVT in the airside environment. This will support planning, analysis, optimization and future deployment. Simulation and analysis of airside AGVT that includes movement of ground vehicles, GSE, aircraft, and ramp workers (e.g., an enhanced version of Aviplan with simulated movements, or an airside version of Vissim, a traffic simulation software that includes virtual testing of autonomous vehicles). • Aircraft Database. Develop an aircraft database for AGVT to support safe interaction with and avoidance of aircraft. Aircraft characteristics (e.g., wingspan and height) of aircraft near AGVT vehicles can be looked up in the database, using information from the aircraft ADS-B transponder. This information will support safety and reduce the likelihood of a collision. • Centralized AGVT Operations Center. Develop and refine framework for a concentrated C4 (centralized command and control center) to coordinate all ramp movements for an airport terminal, including how this C4 can collect data and support automation in stages. Develop alternative computer architecture for distributed and central control components. • Airport Primer for AGVT. Identify information that will help airports understand AGVT, identify possible AGVT applications at their airport, and provide a context for potential collaboration with AGVT equipment providers and vendors. • AGVT Information Sharing. Identify an ongoing and sustainable framework for airports to share information about airside AGVT. This may include an annual AGVT conference like the Aviation Safety InfoShare conference (a protected environment to discuss safety concerns and best practices) and an AGVT reporting database analogous to the Wildlife Strike Database. • Emergency Preparedness. Integrate information from AGVT to support Airport Emergency Preparedness. Ensure compatibility of V2V capabilities for emergency equipment utilized during an airport emergency. This may include the development and communication of

136 Advanced Ground Vehicle Technologies for Airside Operations standards for alert and warning systems with all mutual aid entities that support the airport during an emergency. • Solar Power. Investigate the requirements and develop standards for the use of solar power for AGVT vehicle charging stations and relay stations in remote areas of the airfield. Solar power will support sustainability and simplify power provision in remote areas of the airfield. • Existing Airport Data. Identify existing data from ASDE-X, ASSC, and System Wide Infor- mation Management as well as future data from Terminal Flight Data Manager and surface metering that can be used to support AGVT implementation (including fleet management and scheduling). • Multimodal Collaboration. Identify opportunities to leverage initiatives from other sectors such as Data for Automated Vehicle Integration (DAVI), a multimodal initiative by the U.S. DOT, to identify, prioritize, monitor, and address data exchange needs for AGVT integra- tion across modes. • AGVT Communication with ATCT. Identify technology needs and procedures for future communication with ATCT and CTAF including the current reliability of algorithms for communication through direct voice commands that use standard aviation phraseology and data communications. • Human Factors. Identify and investigate the highest priority human factors issues for airside AGVT. – Identify effective ways for AGVT to signal intent to ramp workers, other ground vehicle drivers and other people working in the environment. – Identify the most effective method to update operators on software changes that may affect AGVT performance and capabilities. – Identify and investigate the most important human factors issues to ensure coordination of AGVT working with people, including a mixed fleet of unmanned AGVT vehicles and manned vehicles (e.g., snowplows) and unmanned or remote AGVT vehicles on the ramp with ramp workers. • Financial Viability. Develop business models to facilitate deployment of shared AGVT equip- ment such as AGVT aircraft tugs for aircraft taxi to the departure runway. • Liability. Investigate liability considerations in the airside environment, and policies airports can take to protect their airport, tenants and aeronautical users. • Cybersecurity. Identify AGVT cybersecurity considerations unique to the airside environ- ment and appropriate mitigation strategies. Develop standard recovery procedure regarding attacks on networking service (e.g., deliberately jamming the network) or data integrity (e.g., falsifying the data). • Existing GPS Infrastructure. Identify the potential for AGVT to use wide area augmentation system (WAAS), ground-based augmentation system (GBAS), or other existing infrastructure to increase the accuracy of GPS for AGVT. This investigation would include both technical and regulatory considerations. In addition to the research needs identified above, it would be very helpful to fund pilot projects for airside AGVT, thoroughly document airside AGVT case studies, and publish airside AGVT data sets to further advance AGVT airside research. Since technologies are rapidly advancing, circumstances and priorities can change quickly in the aviation sector, and it is valuable to reevaluate the viability of AGVT on a regular basis. It is also worthwhile to be aware of related projects and research underway elsewhere. Related projects may be underway with support from the FAA Research Center or the Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR). Related projects may also be underway in other sectors such as the roadway and transit sectors, as well in the terminal and landside environments. These complimentary activities may be valuable to advance airside AGVT and lead to collaborative research opportunities and partnerships.