This article was downloaded by: [University of Southern Queensland]

On: 05 October 2014, At: 06:15

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

GIScience & Remote Sensing

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tgrs20

Small-Scale Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

in Environmental Remote Sensing:
Challenges and Opportunities
a a
Perry J. Hardin & Ryan R. Jensen
a
Brigham Young University
Published online: 15 May 2013.

To cite this article: Perry J. Hardin & Ryan R. Jensen (2011) Small-Scale Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
in Environmental Remote Sensing: Challenges and Opportunities, GIScience & Remote Sensing, 48:1,
99-111

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2747/1548-1603.48.1.99

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Small-Scale Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Environmental
Remote Sensing: Challenges and Opportunities

Perry J. Hardin1 and Ryan R. Jensen

Department of Geography, Brigham Young University,
630 SWKT, Provo, Utah 84602

Abstract: Although potential applications abound, small-scale unmanned aerial

vehicles have not yet been widely used for environmental remote sensing. Several
Downloaded by [University of Southern Queensland] at 06:15 05 October 2014

challenges remain to be overcome until widespread adoption is possible. One prob-

lem is the challenge inherent in flying fragile small-scale aircraft with low weight
limits and narrow center of gravity tolerances. Other challenges include: (1) the hos-
tile natural environment in which the aircraft fly; (2) the limits of on-board power; (3)
the paucity of commercially available sensors; (4) the difficulties involved in manag-
ing and analyzing the large imagery volume generated during a sortie; and (5) the
federal regulations in the United States designed to ensure the safety of commercial
and private air travel. Each of these challenges is formidable, and overcoming them
will require the use of technologies that are currently experimental. However, within
each challenge are opportunities for researchers willing to act as innovative pioneers
in the remote sensing community.

INTRODUCTION

While the precise birthdate of unmanned aerial vehicles is open to debate, the first
fixed-wing unmanned aircraft was probably the Ruston Proctor Aerial Target devel-
oped by Archibald Low as a guided weapon during World War I (Newcome, 2004).
Since that time, unmanned aerial systems have been employed in every major conflict
across the globe. Indeed, like most remote sensing advances, the increased capabilities
in unmanned aerial systems have largely been driven by military needs for creating
weapons platforms, gathering signals intelligence, and acquiring imagery for both tac-
tical and strategic use.
Like its birthdate, the exact definition of an “unmanned aerial vehicle” also remains
open to discussion. For the purposes of this paper, unmanned aerial vehicles include
fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft that are flown without a pilot in the cockpit. Such
unmanned aerial vehicles can also be distinguished by their size and range. Although
military unmanned aerial systems exceeding 1000 kg with a range exceeding 700 km
have been adapted for environmental research, most environmental research is done
with much smaller unmanned systems. These small-scale systems typically weigh less
than 20 kg, have flight-times of a few hours, and have very limited ranges. Many of

1
Corresponding author; email: hardin.perry@gmail.com

99

GIScience & Remote Sensing, 2011, 48, No. 1, p. 99–111. DOI: 10.2747/1548-1603.48.1.99
Copyright © 2011 by Bellwether Publishing, Ltd. All rights reserved.
 100 hardin and jensen

these small unmanned aerial systems are commercially produced, whereas others are
built by researchers from radio-controlled model kits.
The major challenges involved in using these small unmanned aerial vehicles
for environmental remote sensing is the focus of this article. The goal of this article
is to provide a perspective to focus the research and development community on the
pressing needs for innovation in hardware, software, and methodology to improve the
competency of small-scale unmanned aerial systems to gather high-quality environ-
mental imagery.

THE CHALLENGE OF FLIGHT AND ENVIRONMENT

Downloaded by [University of Southern Queensland] at 06:15 05 October 2014

Despite improvements in engineering and technology over the past century, most
modern fixed-wing aircraft have features (e.g., horizontal wings to provide lift, verti-
cally oriented surfaces to control yaw) that operate much like those of their World War
I ancestors. This is because the laws of physics give little leeway to designers to ­create
a flyable aircraft. The penalty for violating those laws is harsh—many researchers
have found through sad experience that the penalty is usually complete aircraft loss.
Therefore, the first challenge associated with unmanned aerial vehicles is to ensure
that the aircraft will actually fly. This may seem humorous, but it is highly practical—
no other mission parameter (e.g. payload choice) will matter if the resulting aerial
system cannot stay aloft. The second challenge is related: to ensure that the aircraft
has flight-handling characteristics that permit the flight team to concentrate on the data
collection rather than the chore of flying safely.
As a general requirement for safe flying, most small fixed-wing unmanned aerial
vehicles are designed for low stall speeds and inherent stability. The ability to fly
slowly has many advantages. For the pilot in an emergent situation, a low stall speed
provides more time to react and maneuver the aircraft. Whereas a stall at high altitude
provides the pilot ample time to recover, environmental missions flown at treetop level
(“low and slow”) enjoy no such latitude—a stall can have catastrophic consequences.
Slow stall speeds and high inherent aircraft stability increase the chances of rapid stall
correction in such situations. When such low and slow missions involve air photog-
raphy, slow flight also minimizes the problem of forward image motion (Walker and
Devore, 1995). When a sensor platform can fly slowly, there is also more freedom in
designing the sensor system itself. For example, many environmental missions require
data (e.g., multispectral imagery) to be collected at regular distance intervals along the
flight path. The electronics of the sensor and data storage system must be able to keep
pace with the aircraft rate of horizontal travel as the images are repetitively acquired.
A slowly flying aircraft makes such synchronization easier. The use of slow sensors on
fast aircraft can also be a problem when collecting meteorological data using sensors
(e.g., temperature, humidity) possessing long latency times (Reuder et al., 2009).
In practical design terms, a low stall speed is most economically obtained by keep-
ing the aircraft weight low and utilizing a low-drag/high-lift wing design. The chal-
lenge to maintain a low stall speed and aircraft stability thus has two practical impacts
on the environmental researcher. First, the overall payload weight must be minimized.
Secondly, the drag created by instrument appendages must likewise be minimized.
When drag and payload weight are increased, the stall speed is raised, stability usu-
ally decreases, and other operational problems are manifest. Flight-time length and
 small-scale unmanned aerial vehicles 101

range are shortened as more fuel is consumed by the engine. Required runway lengths
and takeoff speeds necessarily increase. If the aircraft is catapult launched, greater
launch force is required. In takeoff (catapult or not), and during all phases of flight,
increased aircraft weight increases the wing load and accelerates airframe fatigue.
Airframe fatigue is no theoretical matter; in our several years of building and testing
small unmanned aerial vehicles, every dramatic in-flight aircraft miscarriage (except
one) was traced to high aircraft weight or drag, which in turn caused the main wing to
break. Unfortunately, the necessity to maintain an overall low vehicle weight creates
challenges related to flight environment, aircraft power, and sensor design. These are
discussed below.
Downloaded by [University of Southern Queensland] at 06:15 05 October 2014

For an environmental researcher wishing to fly a sensor package on a small

unmanned aerial vehicle, another important consideration is weight distribution in
the aircraft. Fixed-wing aircraft are designed to fly within certain center of gravity
tolerances. Depending on the wing design, these tolerances are sometimes as small as
a few centimeters. An aircraft with the center of gravity too far forward or aft will be
inherently unstable and difficult to pilot. To ensure stability during flight, researchers
mounting a sensor in (or on) a small-scale aircraft must rebalance the aircraft to ensure
that the center of gravity stays within its design limits. Because sensor packages may
assume a significant percentage of aircraft weight, it is desirable to mount the package
near the center of gravity position. This is preferred because alternative positions may
necessitate dead-weight be added to rebalance the aircraft.
There is also a very practical operational consideration to maintaining the proper
weight distribution aboard a small-scale vehicle. When a project requires frequent
payload changes or modifications, the constant rebalancing of the aircraft becomes
a chore consuming significant ground time. In addition, while the meticulous task of
restoring aircraft balance is relatively straightforward when done in a closed hangar, it
is very difficult to perform in the field on a windy day.
Even when they are inherently stable, small-scale unmanned aerial vehicles can
still be challenging to pilot. Although the technology for automated takeoff and landing
is improving, it is not foolproof, and significant pilot skill may be required during those
critical flight phases. In contrast, the technology to maintain a small vehicle in straight
and level flight at a predefined altitude is a mature technology that is ­effective—these
pilot-assist systems significantly reduce pilot burden. GPS-enabled automated guid-
ance systems capable of navigating the aircraft through a set of predefined waypoints
or through a pre-set flight-repetitive flight pattern are also available. The precision
with which these predefined routes can be flown using consumer-grade GPS receivers
has been studied (Rosenberg, 2009). For flight paths requiring lower accuracy, such
as the collection of meteorological data or aerobiological samples, these systems are
probably sufficient. For higher precision needs, such as low-altitude photography at
predefined coordinate locations along a route, obtaining the desired flight path preci-
sion remains a challenge with current technology.
When purchased as part of turnkey system, navigation electronics for small-scale
aerial vehicles are straightforward to use. However, when used to upgrade an air-
craft originally designed for manual control, these systems can be time consuming to
­integrate and fine-tune. Nonetheless, once properly calibrated for the specific aircraft
control flight characteristics, they perform very competently (Rosenberg, 2009).
 102 hardin and jensen

The Flight Environment

Few environmental researchers will gather data in a battlefield context.

Nonetheless, the weather in which small-scale unmanned aircraft typically fly is suffi-
ciently hostile to remain a challenge. Some researchers have touted the ability of small
remotely piloted aircraft to fly beneath clouds or in foul weather that would ground tra-
ditional aircraft (Sugiura et al., 2005; Jones et al., 2006; Lewis, 2007; Tomlins, 1983).
While those statements are technically accurate, they leave us puzzled; there are few
experienced small-scale aircraft pilots who would undertake such foul-weather flying
unless the project requirements demanded it. In air photography missions, we have
Downloaded by [University of Southern Queensland] at 06:15 05 October 2014

found that any condition less than ideal (i.e., a gentle steady headwind) can make high-
quality air photography with a small-scale aircraft very difficult. Rango et al. (2006)
and Dunford et al. (2009) state that aircraft instability created by wind buffeting and
thermals typically result in a large proportion of air photographs that are unusable for
mosaicking or interpretation. That has also been our experience. Gusty wind not only
makes successful image acquisition difficult, it may also present unacceptable risks to
the aircraft during takeoff and landing.
As mentioned by Hardin and Hardin (2010), researchers frequently choose to fly
unmanned vehicle photo sorties early in the morning to reduce the buffeting effects of
thermals and wind. However this choice also has consequences—i.e., long shadows
produced from the early morning sun altitude may hinder image interpretation. In our
own experience over Utah rangelands, the number of daily summer hours with accept-
able sun angle and safe wind conditions are inconveniently few. Having enough good
weather days to safely fly our small-scale vehicles has been a recurring challenge
for us.
Other environmental conditions have also been cited as hostile to unmanned aer-
ial systems. Jones et al. (2006) found their commercial small-scale aircraft too fragile
for habitat mapping work of Florida wildlands and poorly suited to the salt-water
environment of their study area. Other researchers have also cited fragility as a chal-
lenge to small-scale aircraft systems (Tomlins and Manore, 1984; Rango et al., 2006).
The fragility stems from the materials (e.g., foam, plastic, Mylar, basswood, fiber-
glass) used to ensure a lightweight aircraft. In addition to airframe fragility, we have
frequently noticed that our aircraft navigation electronics have experienced electro-
magnetic interference from commercial and public service communication repeaters.
Since many frequencies used to control unmanned aerial vehicles, download telem-
etry, and transmit video are shared among users and services, this radio interference
problem can present a safety challenge to the vehicle.

The Opportunity

The necessity to maintain low aircraft weight has been a considerable challenge
to small-scale unmanned vehicles. While lightweight materials are already used for
small-scale aircraft construction, there is ample room available for improvements
in materials and construction methods that eliminate the current problem of fragil-
ity associated with such low-weight materials. This opportunity also includes the
issue of manufacturing the materials at low cost to the consumer. Incorporating these
new materials into small-scale vehicles may require design changes and construction
method changes in the airframes themselves.
 small-scale unmanned aerial vehicles 103

A review of Jane’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Targets (Daly and Streetly,
2010) demonstrates the substantial variation in design of small-scale vehicle airframes.
Most aircraft were created to optimize a particular set of desirable characteristics for
military applications. To our knowledge, none were optimized to support environmen-
tal monitoring, in which different capabilities are needed. For example, most military
small-scale vehicles are highly nimble platforms for gathering real-time video rather
than slow stable platforms for hosting multispectral frame cameras and hyperspec-
tral scanners. This represents an opportunity for environmental practitioners to work
with aeronautical engineers to create vehicles specifically for environmental remote
sensing. Although different missions would require a variable set of requirements,
Downloaded by [University of Southern Queensland] at 06:15 05 October 2014

the list of Laliberte et al. (2007) forms a useful point of reference for the prospective
designer.
Improvements in automated navigation and pilot assist systems would likewise be
welcome, with greater attention paid to reliable automated takeoff, automated landing,
and ease of integration. While aircraft stabilization sensors and electronics designed to
keep a small-scale aircraft flying straight-and-level are highly developed, these avion-
ics are still not adequate to prevent the ruin of much image data from wind and turbu-
lence. Given that most environmental research with unmanned aerial vehicles involves
image acquisition, this is a broad avenue of opportunity for continued research and
development.

THE CHALLENGE OF POWER

Small remotely piloted vehicle engines are usually fueled by electrical batteries,
gasoline, or methanol. Each has its advantages and disadvantages (see Hardin and
Hardin, 2010). To some researchers, a significant challenge is the unreliability of the
combustion engines employed by small-scale aircraft (Hunt et al., 2003; Jones et al.,
2006). Our experience is different; we have never had a methanol or electric engine
stall in an operational flight. Nonetheless, short flight times have been a recurrent
problem and we agree with Sugiura et al. (2005) that the short flight times associ-
ated with some small-scale vehicles can pose a significant challenge. While larger gas
tanks, wing tanks, and higher amperage batteries can be used to increase flight length,
the need to minimize aircraft weight may argue against their use.
For environmental researchers interested in using unmanned aerial vehicles,
the consequences of short flight times should not be underestimated. Mission plan-
ning becomes more complicated and some useful mission profiles are impossible to
execute. As power runs low due to unforeseen headwinds or other factors, options
for landing zones diminish because of small reserve power capacities. Unfortunately,
repeated takeoffs and landings of a small aircraft necessitated by limited fuel capac-
ity increases airframe fatigue over time. Therefore, minimizing the number of sorties
required to gather the required data is a nontrivial planning parameter.
Electrical power is also required for onboard electronics and sensor systems. In
contrast to mechanical power generators found on larger aircraft, storage batteries are
typically found on their smaller unmanned cousins. Because weight and space aboard
such aircraft must be rationed, onboard battery capacity must be rationed as well. On
a methanol- or gas-fueled aircraft, the aircraft components that consume the greatest
electrical power include: (1) telemetry transmitters; (2) real-time video transmitters;
 104 hardin and jensen

(3) active sensors; and (4) control surface servos. For telemetry and video transmitters,
low power output devices (< 1.0 watt) are frequently flown aboard small-scale aerial
vehicles. At the ground control station, amplified or high-gain directional receiving
antennas are used to ensure adequate receiving signal strength. Additionally, although
some pilots might find it unnerving, transmitting telemetry data and video periodically
rather than continuously to the ground control station can conserve onboard power.
Despite the methods used to conserve electrical power and minimize battery weight,
the need to power electrical devices aboard small-scale aircraft is a constraint that
cannot be ignored.
For the environmental practitioner considering the use of remotely piloted tech-
Downloaded by [University of Southern Queensland] at 06:15 05 October 2014

nology, the challenge of power may impact the feasibility of a specific project. There
is an obvious need to carefully calculate the power requirements of all aircraft compo-
nents as well as the battery weight equivalent of those power needs. The impact on the
stall speed of the aircraft with the added weight should also be assessed. In addition to
those considerations, the loss in overall flight time will also need to be adjusted for the
increase in fuel required to keep the heavier plane aloft.

The Opportunity

Most small-scale aircraft are powered by combustion engines. Nevertheless, elec-

trical motors have distinct advantages that may be compelling in some environmental
applications in which the noise or contamination associated with combustion engines
render them unsuitable alternatives. Because of this, there are significant opportunities
for research into lightweight battery technology to support small-aircraft propulsion,
power avionics, and power active sensors. Concurrent with this is a need to incorpo-
rate power-saving technologies into all small-aircraft electronics. In addition, environ-
mental researchers may try to apply new passive sensor methodologies to problems
normally reserved for active sensors. Stefanik et al. (2011) serves as an example of
such methods.

THE CHALLENGE OF SENSORS

There are currently a variety of imaging sensors available for small-scale aerial
vehicles, but as reviewed in Hardin and Hardin (2010), most environmental remote
sensing from such aircraft is done with consumer-grade digital cameras. This is not
surprising because such cameras are small, lightweight, require little power, and have
the potential to store hundreds of images from a single flight, making them ideal for
small aircraft. The employment of video aboard small-scale aircraft is also widespread
(Jensen et al., 2008). In-flight video transmission to the ground station is particularly
attractive because it: (1) can be used for low-resolution data collection; (2) facilitates
visual aircraft navigation over the target; and (3) can transmit information about the
aircraft health (e.g., battery level) and status (e.g., position) via a video overlay. The
successful use of infrared cameras and multispectral cameras is also being reported
(Dean et al., 2000; Hunt et al., 2008, 2010; Lebourgeois et al., 2008; Swain et al.,
2010).
More advanced passive sensor systems have likewise been tested. These include
the thermal and multispectral systems discussed by Berni et al. (2009) and Nebiker et
 small-scale unmanned aerial vehicles 105

al. (2008) as well as hyperspectral systems built specifically for environmental tasks
(Rufino and Moccia, 2005). Active systems are under development too. These include
lightweight synthetic aperture radars (Zaugg et al., 2006; Edrich and Weiss, 2008), and
laser terrain profiling systems (Spiess et al., 2007).
Each of these sensor types enjoys its relative advantages for environmental remote
sensing (Jensen, 2006). While those advantages are retained when flown aboard small-
scale aircraft, significant challenges remain. As mentioned previously, the buffeting
from wind and thermals reduce image quality. This is a problem that plagues all imag-
ing sensors aboard small-scale vehicles. The problem with limited on-board battery
power (as mentioned above) is also constraining for active sensors that can have power
Downloaded by [University of Southern Queensland] at 06:15 05 October 2014

requirements of several watts. Perhaps the biggest sensor challenge is the relative lack
of commercially available sensors; most UAS sensors remain experimental. Small
and lightweight three-band multispectral cameras designed specifically for unmanned
vehicle flight such as the ADC-Lite by Tetracam Inc. (Chatsworth, CA) are notable
exceptions. Even so, environmental researchers with experience using consumer-grade
digital cameras enjoying high pixel counts (i.e., 4000 × 3000 pixels and greater) may
be disappointed with the low resolution of many lightweight multispectral cameras
(~2000 × 1500 pixels).

The Opportunity

Given the foregoing, it is clear that many sensor types can be successfully flown
aboard small-scale platforms. This success has largely been driven by electronics
microminiaturization and the increasing availability of off-the-shelf components that
can be used in building such sensors. The present need and opportunity is to make the
technology commercially available to the environmental science practitioner.

THE CHALLENGE OF DATA ANALYSIS

The majority of remotely sensed data gathered by small-scale aircraft is large-

scale digital photography. Using this photography poses several challenges. The first
challenge is simply the volume of data to manage. In one of our early data collection
projects (Hardin et al., 2007), a single aircraft flight lasting only 10 minutes would
generate about 200 photographs of three-bands each. When multiplied by the number
of sorties flown on a day with good weather, the sheer number of photographs to be
managed in the laboratory became a problem almost as thorny as the interpretation of
the photography itself.
The second problem is photograph rectification and geo-referencing. As men-
tioned previously, because of vehicle buffeting by wind and turbulence, a substan-
tial proportion of this photography may have geometric characteristics ill-suited for
simple rectification, mosaicking, and georeferencing procedures. To help mitigate this
problem, photographs are frequently oversampled along a flightline. Flight recorders
also store the aircraft location as well as measures of vehicle heading, roll, pitch, and
yaw associated with each photograph. When the photographs are mosaicked, those
with minimally acceptable geometry can be retained while the remaining photos are
culled. Photograph oversampling also facilitates the practice of digitally “cutting out”
the center of each photograph (where geometric distortion is minimal) and discarding
 106 hardin and jensen

the off-nadir portions. The hope is that the oversampling will preclude any data gaps
after the culling and cutting process is completed. Although progress is being made
(Laliberte et al., 2008, 2011; Laliberte and Rango, 2011), none of this preprocessing
has been completely automated in the civilian sector and substantial manual interac-
tion is still required.
The third challenge in remote sensing from small-scale platforms is the use of
nonmetric cameras for topographic mapping tasks normally reserved for metric sys-
tems. Due to the importance of registration and rectification in most project work-
flows, a significant amount of research has been devoted to completing those tasks
with nonmetric camera imagery. A sampling includes Chandler et al. (2005), Laliberte
Downloaded by [University of Southern Queensland] at 06:15 05 October 2014

et al. (2008), Dunford et al. (2009), Vericat et al. (2009), Verhoeven et al. (2009), and
Zhou (2009).
A fourth challenge is automating the interpretation of low-altitude large-scale
­aerial photography to create land cover map products. When pixel ground dimensions
are measured in centimeters, it is clear that per-pixel classifiers used by geographers for
analyzing satellite imagery would be inadequate for mapping land cover from large-
scale photography. In automating the task, some progress has been reported in the
use of object oriented approaches to classify certain rangeland features (Laliberte and
Rango, 2011; Laliberte et al., 2011), but these solutions tend to be very site ­specific
and not easily generalized.

The Opportunity

Most commercial image processing programs used by environmental scientists

are general programs designed to manage multispectral or hyperspectral imagery from
aircraft and satellites. In our experience, these commercial programs have inadequate
functionality to effectively (1) preprocess large-scale photography possessing substan-
tial geometric defects, and (2) convert the photography into large-scale data products
and maps. Like the sensors themselves, computer programs developed for correcting
and analyzing unmanned aerial vehicle sensor data remain largely experimental, very
specialized, and noncommercial. The development and distribution of user-friendly
and effective programs that can be generally applied to a wide variety of large-scale
mapping problems is sorely needed. This challenge represents a significant opportu-
nity for environmental researchers who can combine their own disciplinary knowl-
edge with the necessary computing, mathematics, logic, and image processing skills
to remedy the need.

THE CHALLENGE OF REGULATION

In the United States, the flight of unmanned aerial vehicles is strictly regulated by
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Because the potential loss of life from in-
flight accidents is unacceptably high, the FAA is understandably unwilling to loosen
unmanned aircraft regulations simply to facilitate environmental remote sensing.
Nearly all environmental research using unmanned aircraft within the U.S. National
Airspace System is conducted within the bounds set by a Certificate of Authorization
(COA) granted to a cooperating government agency. The difficulty of obtaining a
COA and the cost of operating under its provisions should be considered in every
 small-scale unmanned aerial vehicles 107

prospective project. While a COA is customized for each specific operation, the fol-
lowing requirements may be required (FAA, 2010).

• Even if s/he does not actually control the aircraft movement moment-by-
moment, a licensed private pilot may be required to serve as the in-flight
commander for the vehicle.

• Because small-scale aircraft are hard to see from a distance, provisions for
detecting and avoiding other aircraft in the flying area are essential. This may
include having on-ground crew members serving as horizon-to-horizon look-
outs (Esler, 2010; Laliberte et al., 2011).
Downloaded by [University of Southern Queensland] at 06:15 05 October 2014

• A maximum altitude limit may be defined to further lower the probability of

in-flight collision with commercial or private aircraft.

• The proposed unmanned aircraft operations may only be permitted within

limited geographic areas sequestered from civilian aircraft operation.
Unmanned aircraft flight over inhabited areas or near airports may be com-
pletely forbidden.

• Even if the small-scale aircraft is capable of remote flight, the aircraft may
nonetheless be required to stay within unaided visual range of the flight team
members. The use of a chase vehicle to maintain visual range would likely
be acceptable.

• While the aircraft may be capable of autonomous flight, failsafe provi-

sions may be required for instantly reassuming manual control in case of
emergencies.

• Provisions may be required for the pilot of the unmanned aircraft to maintain
contact with local air traffic controllers.

The cost of these regulations, as well as the process of obtaining a COA, will
probably discourage many environmental researchers from adopting or develop-
ing unmanned aerial vehicles (Jones et al., 2006; Göktoğon et al., 2010; Koski et
al., 2009). This is understandable, inasmuch as meeting requirements imposed by the
COA eliminate many of the advantages otherwise presented by unfettered use of the
technology. For example, the rapid deployment of aircraft over targets of opportunity
has been considered a strength of remotely piloted vehicles (Hardin and Hardin, 2010;
Rango et al., 2006). However, unless a temporary COA is provided by the FAA, such
flights are forbidden in areas flown by other aircraft—a prohibition that significantly
dilutes their potential use. Karp and Pasztor (2006) provide an example of such a pro-
hibition over New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

The Opportunity

In our opinion, the regulations that control small-scale aircraft flight form the
greatest obstacle to the technology’s widespread adoption for environmental remote
sensing. Two groups of stakeholders are particularly discouraged by regulation. The
 108 hardin and jensen

first group includes those practitioners who seek to use existing small-scale aircraft for
environmental monitoring. Their primary interest is not building and testing unmanned
aircraft, but applying them as tools to gather environmental data. For many of these
potential non-pilot users, the hurdle of obtaining the necessary FAA approvals to con-
duct their data gathering is largely insurmountable. Consequently, the civilian demand
for small-scale unmanned aerial systems remains stagnant. The second stakeholding
group includes those corporations developing and selling remotely piloted systems
(and allied components and services) whose primary motive is profit. These corpora-
tions almost universally focus on potential sales within the military and federal law
enforcement sector where regulation obstacles are more easily managed. Until regu-
Downloaded by [University of Southern Queensland] at 06:15 05 October 2014

latory requirements can be satisfied and the demand for environmental small-scale
aircraft effectively increased, the current corporate focus will not be adjusted to serve
environmental remote sensing.
We do not think the remedy to this challenge is immediate relaxation of current
rules. Given that the primary concern of small-scale aircraft operation in national air-
space are (1) reliable control and communication; and (2) collision avoidance (FAA,
2010), the opportunity for researchers is to create microelectronic systems that can
ensure safe and reliable controlled flight of the aircraft. Indeed, this is an area of
ongoing research (Kephart and Braasch, 2010; Gonzalez et al., 2010), but there is
much more development and testing needed until such systems can be safely used by
“non-pilots.” Beyond developing hardware and software, the second opportunity is to
cooperate with regulatory agencies in establishing reasonable policies, operating pro-
cedures, and certifications that permit the advantages of small-scale aircraft operations
to be realized without compromising national airspace flight safety.

CONCLUSION

While the broad potential for environmental monitoring by small-scale unmanned

aircraft was effectively argued by Tomlins (1983) and reiterated by Laliberte et al.
(2007), most of the 46 environmental applications proposed by Tomlins remain largely
unexplored (Hardin and Hardin, 2010). Thus, the promise represented by small-scale
aerial vehicles for environmental research nearly three decades ago remains unful-
filled. The challenges to fulfillment are formidable, and many will require the use of
technologies that are now only experimental (e.g., hydrogen fuel cells). Creating the
appropriate technology and sound methodology necessary to develop each of those
unserved environmental applications is an opportunity for aggressive researchers will-
ing to act as innovation pioneers in the environmental remote sensing community.

REFERENCES

Berni, J. A. J., Zarco-Tejada, P. J., Suárez, L., and E. Fereres, 2009, “Thermal and
Narrowband Multispectral Remote Sensing for Vegetation Monitoring from an
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sens-
ing, 47:722–738.
Chandler, J., Fryer, J. G., and A. Jack, 2005, “Metric Capabilities of Low-Cost Digital
Cameras for Close Range Surface Measurement,” The Photogrammetric Record,
20:12–26.
 small-scale unmanned aerial vehicles 109

Daly, M. And M. Streetly (Eds.), Jane’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Targets, Brack-
nell, UK: IHS Global Limited.
Dean, C., Warner, T. A., and J. B. McGraw, 2000, “Suitability of the DCS460 Colour
Digital Camera for Quantitative Remote Sensing Analysis of Vegetation,” ISPRS
Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 55:105–118.
Dunford, R., Michel, K., Gagnage, M., Piégay, H., and M.–L. Trémelo, 2009, “Poten-
tial and Constraints of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Technology for the Characteriza-
tion of Mediterranean Riparian Forest,” International Journal of Remote Sensing,
30:4915 – 4935.
Edrich, M. and G. Weiss, 2008, “Second-Generation Ka-Band UAV SAR System,” in
Downloaded by [University of Southern Queensland] at 06:15 05 October 2014

Proceedings of the 38th European Microwave Conference, Amsterdam, October

27–31, 2008, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: European Microwave Association.
Esler, D., 2010, “How UAVs Will Change Aviation,” Aviation Week, June 7, 2010.
FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), 2010, Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS),
Regulations and Policies,” FAA Aviation Safety Unmanned Aircraft Program
Office, [http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/, last accessed December
24, 2010].
Göktoğon, A. H., Sukkarieh, S., Bryson, M., Randle, J., Lupton, T., and C. Hung,
2010, “A Rotary-Winged Unmanned Air Vehicle for Aquatic Weed Surveillance
and Management,” Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, 57:467–484.
Gonzalez, F., Walker, R., Rutherford, N., and C. Turner, 2010, “Assessment of the
Suitability of Public Mobile Data Networks for Aircraft Telemetry and Control
Purposes,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences [doi:10.1016/j.paerosci], in press.
Hardin, P. J. and T. J. Hardin, 2010, “Small-Scale Remotely Piloted Vehicles in Envi-
ronmental Research,” Geography Compass, 4(9):1297–1311.
Hardin, P. J., Jackson, M. W., Anderson, V. J., and R. Johnson, 2007, “Detecting
Squarrose Knapweed (Centaurea virgata Lam. Ssp. squarrosa Gugl.) Using a
Remotely Piloted Vehicle: A Utah Case Study,” GIScience and Remote Sensing,
44:203–219.
Hunt, E. R., Jr., Daughtry, C. S. T., Walthall, C. L., McMurtrey, J. E., III, and P. Dulaney,
2003, “Agricultural Remote Sensing Using Radio-Controlled Aircraft,” in Digital
Image and Spectral Techniques: Applications to Precision Agriculture and Crop
Physiology, Madison, WI: American Soil Association, ASA Special Publications
Number 66, 197–205.
Hunt, E. R., Jr., Hively, W. D., Daughtry, C. S. T., McCarty, G. W., Fujikawa, S. J., Ng,
T. L., Tranchitella, M., Linden, D. S., and D. W. Yoel, 2008, “Remote Sensing of
Crop Leaf Area Index Using Unmanned Airborne Vehicles,” in Proceedings of the
Pecora 17 Symposium, Denver, CO, November 18–20, 2008.
Hunt, E. R., Jr., Hively, W. D., Fujikawa, S. J., Linden, D. S., Daughtry, C. S. T., and
G. W. McCarty, 2010, “Acquisition of NIR-Green-Blue Digital Photographs from
Unmanned Aircraft for Crop Monitoring,” Remote Sensing, 2:290–305.
Jensen, A. M., Baumann, M., and Y. Q. Chen, 2008, “Low-Cost Multispectral Aerial
Imaging Using Autonomous Runway-Free Small Flying Wing Vehicles, in Trans-
actions of the 2008 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Sympo-
sium, Boston, MA, July 6–11, 2008, New York, NY: Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers.
 110 hardin and jensen

Jensen, J. R., 2006, Remote Sensing of Environment: An Earth Resource Perspective,

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jones, G. P., IV, Pearlstine, L. G., and H. F. Percival, 2006, “An Assessment of Small
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for Wildlife Research,” Wildlife Society Bulletin,
34:750–758.
Karp, J. and A. Pasztor, 2006, “Drones in Domestic Skies?; They’re in Demand for
Rescue and Surveillance Missions, but Critics Question Safety,” Wall Street Jour-
nal, August 7, 2006, B1.
Kephart, R. J. and M. S. Braasch, 2010, “See-and-Avoid Comparison of Performance
in Manned and Remotely Piloted Aircraft,” Aerospace and Electronic Systems
Downloaded by [University of Southern Queensland] at 06:15 05 October 2014

Magazine, 25:36-42.
Koski, W. R., Allen, T., Ireland, D., Buck, G., Smith, P. R., Macrander, A. M., Halick,
M. A., Rushing, C., Silva, D. J., and T. L. McDonald, 2009, “Evaluation of an
Unmanned Airborne System for Monitoring Marine Mammals,” Aquatic Mam-
mals, 35:347–357.
Laliberte, A. S., and A. Rango, 2011, “Image Processing and Classification Procedures
for Analysis of Sub-decimeter Imagery Acquired with an Unmanned Aircraft over
Arid Rangelands,” GIScience and Remote Sensing, 48:4–23.
Laliberte, A. S., Rango, A., and J. Herrick, 2007, “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for
Rangeland Mapping and Monitoring: a Comparison of Systems,” Paper presented
at The American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Annual Con-
ference, Tampa, FL, May 7–11, 2007.
Laliberte, A. S., Winters, C., and A. Rango, 2008, “A Procedure for Orthorectification
of Sub-decimeter Resolution Imagery Obtained with an Unmanned Aerial Vehi-
cle.” Paper presented at The American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote
Sensing Annual Conference, Portland, OR, April 28–May 2, 2008.
Laliberte, A. S., Winters, C., and A. Rango, 2011, “UAS Remote Sensing Missions for
Rangeland Applications,” Geocarto International, in press.
Lebourgeois, V., Bégúe, A., Labbé, S., Mallavan, B., Prévot, L., and B. Roux, 2008,
“Can Commercial Digital Cameras Be Used as Multispectral Sensors? A Crop
Monitoring Test,” Sensors, 8:7300–7322.
Lewis, G., 2007, “Evaluating the Use of a Low-Cost Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Plat-
form in Acquiring Digital Imagery for Emergency Response,” in Geomatics Solu-
tions for Disaster Management, Berlin, Germany: Springer, 117–133.
Nebiker, S., Annen, A., Scherrer, M., and D. Oesch, 2008, “A Light-Weight Multispec-
tral Sensor for Micro UAV—Opportunities for Very High Resolution Airborne
Remote Sensing,” in The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote
Sensing, and Spatial Information Sciences ISPRS Congress, XXXVII, Part B1,
Commission 1:1193–1200.
Newcome, L. R., 2004, Unmanned Aviation: A Brief History of Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles, Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
Rango, A., Laliberte, A., Steele, C., Herrick, J. E., Bestelmeyer, B., Schmugge, T.,
Roanhorse, A., and V. Jenkins, 2006, “Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for
Rangelands: Current Applications and Future Potentials,” Environmental Prac-
tice, 8:159–168.
 small-scale unmanned aerial vehicles 111

Reuder, J., Brisset, P., Jonassen, M., Müller, M., and S. Mayer, 2009, “The Small
Unmanned Meteorological Observer SUMO: A New Tool for Atmospheric
Boundary Layer Research,” Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 18:141–147.
Rosenberg, A. S., 2009, An Evaluation of a UAV Guidance System with Consumer
Grade GPS Receivers, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Agricultural and Biosys-
tems Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Rufino, G. and A. Moccia,2005, “Integrated VIS-NIR Hyperspectral/Thermal-IR
Electro-optical Payload System for a Mini-UAV,” in Proceedings of the AIAA
5th Aviation, Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Arlington,
VA, September 26–28, 2005. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Downloaded by [University of Southern Queensland] at 06:15 05 October 2014

Astronautics.
Spiess, T., Bange, J., Buschmann, M., and P. Vörsmann, 2007, “First Application of the
Meteorological Mini-UAV ‘M2AV’,” Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 16:156–169.
Stefanik, K. V., Gassaway, J. C., Kochersberger, K., and A. L. Abbott, 2011, “UAV-
Based Stereo Vision for Rapid Aerial Terrain Mapping,” GIScience and Remote
Sensing, 48:24–49.
Sugiura, R., Noguchi, N., and K. Ishii, 2005, “Remote-Sensing Technology for Veg-
etation Monitoring Using an Unmanned Helicopter,” Biosystems Engineering,
90:369–379.
Swain, K. C., Thomson, S. J., and H. P. W. Jayasuriya, 2010, “Adoption of Unmanned
Helicopter for Low-Altitude Remote Sensing to Estimate Yield and Total Bio-
mass of a Rice Crop,” Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural and
Biological Engineers, 53:21–27.
Tomlins, G. F., 1983, “Some Considerations in the Design of Low-Cost Remotely-
Piloted Aircraft for Civil Remote Sensing Applications,” The Canadian Surveyor,
37:157–167.
Tomlins, G. F. and M. J. Manore, 1984, “Remotely Piloted Aircraft for Small Format
Aerial Photography,” in Proceedings of the 8th Canadian Symposium on Remote
Sensing, Montreal, Quebec Canada, May 3–6, 1983, 127–136.
Verhoeven, G. J. J., Loenders, J., Vermeulen, F., and R. Docter, 2009, “Helikite Aerial
Photography—a Versatile Means of Unmanned, Radio Controlled, Low-Altitude
Aerial Archaeology,” Archaeological Prospection, 16:125–138.
Vericat, D., Brasington, J., Wheaton, J., and M. Cowie, 2009, “Accuracy Assessment
of Aerial Photographs Acquired Using Lighter-than-Air Blimps: Low-Cost Tools
for Mapping River Corridors,” River Research and Applications, 25:985–1000.
Walker, J. W. and S. L. Devore, 1995, Low Altitude Large Scale Reconnaissance: A
Method of Obtaining High Resolution Vertical Photographs for Small Areas, rev.
ed., Denver CO: U.S. National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Regional Office,
Interagency Archaeological Services Division of Partnerships and Outreach.
Zaugg, E. C., Hudson, D. L., and Long, D. G., 2006, “The BYU µSAR: A Small,
­Student-Built SAR for UAV Operation,” in Transactions of the 2006 IEEE Inter-
national Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Denver, CO, July 31–
August 4, 2006, New York, NY: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Zhou, G., 2009, “Near Real-Time Orthorectification and Mosaic of Small UAV Video
Flow for Time-Critical Event Response,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing, 47:39–747.