School of Transportation Sciences

Master of Transportation Sciences

Master's thesis

Command and control structures for search and rescue drones

Elvis Mongomi Tiko

Thesis presented in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Transportation Sciences, specialization
Traffic Safety

SUPERVISOR :
Prof. dr. ir. Ansar-Ul-Haque YASAR

MENTOR :
De heer Roeland PAUL

2021
2022
School of Transportation Sciences
Master of Transportation Sciences
Master's thesis

Command and control structures for search and rescue drones

Elvis Mongomi Tiko

Thesis presented in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Transportation Sciences, specialization
Traffic Safety

SUPERVISOR :
Prof. dr. ir. Ansar-Ul-Haque YASAR

MENTOR :
De heer Roeland PAUL
 i

Preface.

The present thesis is a prerequisite to completing the Masters in Transportation Sciences program at the
University of Hasselt. The study aims to understand search and rescue command and control structures
using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles or Drones. Furthermore. as an individual concerned about the safety of
persons exposed to risks and coming from an environment that predominantly experiences landslides, floods
and maritime piracy. I desire to contribute with knowledge that will help improve the search and rescue
process with the technological evolution of UAVs with enhanced command and control structures that will
boost the timely intervention in saving the lives of victims during an emergency.

I would like to express my gratitude to Professor dr. ir. Ansar YASAR for close and friendly supervision
and my Mentor, De heer Roeland PAUL, for guidance and support. My profound gratitude goes to Professor
dr. Elke HERMANS. Madam Tine HUYGH, Madam Patricia HELLRIEGEL and Madam Nadine
SMEYERS for their academic motivation. My sincere appreciation to Madam Liesbeth HUBER, Madam
Laurien STUVERS, Madam Tine VEERSLEENGERS and Mr Niels LAMBRICHTS for their
encouragement and academic assistance. My sincere gratitude to all the School of Transportation Sciences
staff and the entire Hasselt University who influenced my academic success differently.

Sincere appreciation to my parents, Mrs Itoe Hana Bier, Mrs Itoe Florence M, Mr/Mrs Josepth Isabel and
Mr/Mrs Sakwe Linus. My brothers and sisters; Mr/Mrs Nyando, Mr/Mrs NNOKO, Mr/Mrs Baye Victor,
Mr/Mrs Ekole Nemba, Madam Tiko Evelyne, Mr Ndassa, Mr Asio John, Mr/Mrs Owasi Junior, Mr Isabel
and Mr Narioma Elangwe for their support. My appreciation to all my friends for their support during this
study period.
 ii

Summary

The study investigated the command-and-control structures for search and rescue drones.
Specifically, the work examines the influence of command-and-control structures of UAVs or
Drones in search and rescue missions through its facilities and stakeholders. The study also
examines the challenges UAVs experience in search and rescue operations and suggested
mitigations. The study considered a qualitative exploratory research design with a global reach of
some selected search and rescue Institutes that uses UAVs in emergency management through a
purposive and convenient sample. The study data was obtained through an open-ended recorded
interview of UAV stakeholders of the selected search and rescue organizations. NVivo version
20.6.1 software application and an online interview transcription platform, otter.ai, were used as
instruments for transcription. The transcribed data was presented into thematic tables with data
classified into themes and codes for analysis. Thematic analysis was applied through a thorough
examination of the data to identify common themes, ideas and patterns that appear repeatedly. The
results from the analyzed data revealed that command and control structures through the established
facilities and concerned stakeholders influence the search and rescue operations with drones or
UAVs in an emergency. The finding acts as empirical evidence to justify that UAVs' command and
control structures influence the effectiveness of search and rescue missions. The study recommends
sustainable and resilient UAVs' command and control structures in search and rescue missions.
 iii

TABLE OF CONTENT.
Preface. ........................................................................................................................................................... i
Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... ii
OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF TERMS ............................................................................................ vi
ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER ONE............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.0.0. INTRODUCTION. ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1.0 Background to the Study ............................................................................................................... 1
1.2.0. Problem Statement. ............................................................................................................................. 4
1.3.0. Research Questions. ........................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1. Main Research question .................................................................................................................. 4
1.3.2. Sub research questions. ................................................................................................................... 4
1.4.0. Research Objectives. .......................................................................................................................... 5
1.4.1. The main research objective. ........................................................................................................... 5
1.4.2. Sub research objectives. .................................................................................................................. 5
1.5.0. Justification of the Study ..................................................................................................................... 5
1.6.0. Significance of The Study. .................................................................................................................. 5
1.7.0. Scope. .................................................................................................................................................. 5
CHAPTER TWO........................................................................................................................................... 6
METHODOLOGY. ....................................................................................................................................... 6
2.0.0. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.0. Study Design. ...................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2.0. Study Area. ...................................................................................................................................... 6
2.3.0 Participants. ...................................................................................................................................... 6
2.4.0 Sampling........................................................................................................................................... 6
2.5.0 Research Instrument and Data collection. ........................................................................................ 7
2.6.0 Validity ............................................................................................................................................. 8
2.7.0 Ethical Consideration. ...................................................................................................................... 8
2.8.0 Interview Respond rate. .................................................................................................................... 8
2.9.0 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER THREE ..................................................................................................................................... 10
Literature Review ........................................................................................................................................ 10
3.0.0 Conceptual Review......................................................................................................................... 10
3.1.1. The operational scenario of C2 ................................................................................................. 15
3.1.2. Mission planning and coordination: .......................................................................................... 15
 iv

3.1.3. UAV Command and control....................................................................................................... 16

3.1.4. Mobile interface for Search and Rescue Responders ............................................................... 17
3.1.5. Deployment scenario for C2 systems ........................................................................................ 17
3.1.6. Centralized command and control ............................................................................................ 18
3.1.7 The distributed command and control scenarios. ..................................................................... 19
3.2.0 Facilities of C2 intelligent systems for UAVs ................................................................................ 21
3.2. 1. U-space ..................................................................................................................................... 21
3.2.2 Development of training and support tools. .............................................................................. 21
3.2.3 Communication Assets. .............................................................................................................. 22
3.2.4 UAVs Command and control base stations ................................................................................ 22
3.3.0. Stakeholders. ................................................................................................................................. 24
3.3.0 Challenges of UAV in search and Rescue ...................................................................................... 25
3.4.0 Theoretical Review......................................................................................................................... 26
3.4.1 Bowtie Model of risk management. ........................................................................................... 26
3.4.2 Fault tree analysis ....................................................................................................................... 26
3.4.3 Event tree analysis...................................................................................................................... 27
3.4.4 Cause consequence analysis ...................................................................................................... 27
3.4.5 Barrier analysis ........................................................................................................................... 27
3.4.6 Principle of Bowtie analysis ........................................................................................................ 27
3.4.7 Hazards ....................................................................................................................................... 28
3.4.8 Top events .................................................................................................................................. 28
3.4.9 Threats ........................................................................................................................................ 28
3.4.10. Consequences.......................................................................................................................... 28
3.4.11 Barriers ..................................................................................................................................... 28
3.4.12 Escalation factors and barriers. ................................................................................................ 28
3.4.13 Bowtie Model application ........................................................................................................ 29
3.4.14 Hazard and top event Identification......................................................................................... 29
3.4.15 Threats and preventive barriers identification ........................................................................ 29
3.4.16 Consequences and Recovery Barriers ...................................................................................... 30
3.4.17 Escalating factors ...................................................................................................................... 30
CHAPTER FOUR. ...................................................................................................................................... 32
4.0.0. Findings. ............................................................................................................................................ 32
4.1.0. Exploring the possible command-and-control structures for UAVs in search and rescue
operations. ............................................................................................................................................... 35
 v

4.2.0. Facilities relevant for search and rescue operations with UAVs ................................................... 37
4.3.0. Stakeholders for UAV in search and rescue missions. .................................................................. 40
4.4.0. Identified threats of UAVs in SAR operations and their mitigations. ........................................... 42
4.5.0. Summary of respondents’ views on Command-and-control structures of SAR Drones operations.
................................................................................................................................................................. 45
CHAPTER FIVE ......................................................................................................................................... 47
5.0.0. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................... 47
5.1.1. Command and control structures for SAR operations with UAVs................................................ 47
5.1.2. Facilities relevant for search and rescue missions. ........................................................................ 47
5.1.3. Stakeholders for UAVs in search and rescue missions. ................................................................ 48
5.1.4. Identified challenges of UAVs in SAR operations and mitigations. ............................................. 48
5.2.0. Implications of findings to Transportation research. ..................................................................... 49
5.3.0. Conclusion. .................................................................................................................................... 49
5.4.0. Recommendations. ........................................................................................................................ 50
5.5.0. Suggestions to further research. .................................................................................................... 50
5.6.0. Limitations of the study. ................................................................................................................ 50
Reference. .................................................................................................................................................... 52
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................. 56
AUTHORIZATION FOR RESEARCH...................................................................................................... 56
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ......................................................................................................................... 57
INTERVIEW RESEARCH QUESTIONS. ................................................................................................. 58
SIGNED CONSENT FORMS .................................................................................................................... 60

LIST OF FIGURES.

Figure 1, DJI Matrice 210 V2 SAR/LE/Fire Drone, source: lblasting.com .................................................................. 3

Figure 2.Actors involved in Command-and-Control Systems; (Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017)). ................................ 3
Figure 3.Figure 3. C2 systems deployment and communication framework; (Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017)............ 3
Figure 4.. A C2 System Architecture. Source:(Yanmaz, Yahyanejad et al. 2018). ....................................................... 3
Figure 5. Command and control system for mission planning and coordination. Source: (Govindaraj, Letier et al.
2017) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 6. Robot or Unmanned vehicle command and control system. Source:(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017) .......... 17
Figure 7.Figure 8.A presentation of Mobile interface view C2 system. Source:(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017) ....... 17
Figure 8. Centralized deployment scenario of C2 intelligent systems for SAR close to the OSOCC; source;
(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017)) .................................................................................................................................. 19
 vi

Figure 9. Distributed scenarios for SAR operations performed at different sectors. Source: (Govindaraj,
Letier et al. 2017) ......................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 10.Fixed side C2 base station. Source: https://www.kratosdefense.com/products/uav/air/uav-command-and-
control. ......................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 11.. Portable command and control base station. Source:(Balta, Bedkowski et al. 2017) ............................... 23
Figure 12.. Transportable C2 base station. Source: https://www.kratosdefense.com/products/uav/air/uav-command-
and-control. .................................................................................................................................................................. 24

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.0 Search and Rescue Stakeholders by Countries ............................................................................................... 7
Table 2.0. General information about Respondents and Organization for SAR operations with Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles........................................................................................................................................................................ 32
Table 3. Observed C2 structures for SAR operations with UAVs by respondents. ..................................................... 35
Table 4.Facilities perceived by respondents for UAVs in Search and Rescue operations. .......................................... 37
Table 5. Stakeholders observed in SAR operations using UAVs ................................................................................. 40
Table 6. Challenges observed in SAR operations with the use of UAVs and perceived mitigations ........................... 42
Table 7.Summary of perceived relevance of C2 structures for SAR with UAVs. ....................................................... 45

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF TERMS.

Command and Control: Command and control denotes the set of organizational and technical attributes
and processes by which an enterprise marshal and employs human, physical and information resources to
solve problems and accomplish missions.
The arrangement of personnel, information management, procedures, equipment, and facilities required by
the commander to operate is known as a command-and-control system.
Architecture: An architecture consists of a set of structure designs to let the architect, builder and significant
stakeholders see how their concerns are satisfied.
Facilities: These are building, equipment, or services provided for a particular purpose.
Stakeholder. An individual or group of individuals interested in the decision or activity of an organization.
Search and rescue: These are the search and provision of aid to people in distress or imminent danger.
Drones: A drone is an unpiloted aircraft or spacecraft. It's also referred to as an unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV).
 vii

ABBREVIATIONS.

ADI: Alliance for Drones Innovation.

C2: Command and control

ICARUS: Integrated component for assistance rescue and unmanned search.

INSARAG: International search and rescue advisory group

LEMA: Local emergency management authority.

MPCS: Mission planning coordination system.

MSAR: Maritime search and rescue.

OSOCC: On-site operation and coordination centre.

RCC2: Robot command and control.

SAR: Search and rescue.

UAV: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.

USAR: Urban search and rescue.

 1

CHAPTER ONE

1.0.0. INTRODUCTION.

This section gives an overview of the research study, with an observation of the study background, problem
statement, research questions and objectives, justification of the study, significance, and scope.

1.1.0 Background to the Study

The use of Unmanned Ariel Vehicles (UAVs) or drones in the search and Rescue (SAR) of victims in the
state of disasters has been noted with remarkable significance. Unmanned Ariel Vehicles (UAVs) have been
identified as a vital new resource in nearly all SAR services (Gotovac, Zelenika et al. 2020). According to
the Alliance for Drone Innovation (ADI), at least 59 people were saved by drones from life-threatening
situations in 18 different accidents globally in 2017 (Gotovac, Zelenika et al. 2020).

According to Erdelj, Natalizio et al. (2017), during a crisis, disaster management personnel's response time
is critical in rescuing the lives of victims. Aerial evaluation of the UAV network provides the most efficient
situational awareness. The response time of disaster management personnel during a natural disaster is
critical in saving the lives of those in the affected areas. Using UAVs, first responders can quickly
understand the gravity of the material damage and the potential number of the affected victim in the
disaster(Erdelj, Natalizio et al. 2017).

Depending on the Country, different restrictions apply to the use of UAVs; however, during a crisis, specific
permissions are frequently granted to flying devices to assist first responders in assessing the situation as
rapidly as possible(Erdelj, Natalizio et al. 2017). Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or Drones have
recently emerged as a cost-effective solution for handling emergency scenarios for various reasons. UAVs
can quickly approach difficult-to-reach sites such as devastated areas, cover large search areas, and can be
rapidly deployed in disaster areas delivering on-demand mobile networks (Albanese, Sciancalepore et al.
2020).

UAVs are of various sizes and configurations capable of flying without a pilot on board. An onboard
computer controls the object's flight, and the drone is operated by a pilot operating from the ground via radio
(Pensieri, Garau et al. 2020). Drones are being more widely employed to assist public safety personnel and
first responders. Drones provide low-cost, simple-to-operate, and analytically complex remote sensing
solutions in SAR, hazardous response, wildfires, medical supply delivery to remote regions, and many other
applications.(Eyerman, Crispino et al. 2018). The use of drones for public safety is one of the most
promising and widespread applications for search and Rescue. SAR is a sophisticated procedure that varies
 2

widely based on the environment, weather, the experience and skill level of the searchers, and the missing
individual.

The current standard procedure for SAR has been created, performed, and upgraded over many years of
training and testing in diverse situations worldwide (Eyerman, Crispino et al. 2018). The successful
operation of UAVs in Search and Rescue Missions has been influenced by an adequate coordinated
architecture or command and control structures. The concept of Command and Control is derived from
Military operation research. Military operations would never have succeeded in the past without effective
command and control, especially the massive operations that have been performed. (Erdelj, Natalizio et al.
2017, Afina, Inverarity et al. 2020).

According to Leonhard, Buchanan et al. (2010), the setup of personnel, training, information management,
equipment, and facilities required for a commander or other decision-maker to carry out an operation is
command and control. The command-and-control aspect fit nicely into an Industrial Age perspective that
assumed organizations and events could be adequately portrayed as machines, although complicated.
Results might be controlled if machines functioned according to a known set of rules (Afina, Inverarity et
al. 2020). The command and Control research concept is proving to be practically relevant in providing
adequate solutions to many public safety challenges(Erdelj, Natalizio et al. 2017, Eyerman, Crispino et al.
2018)

The Integrated Components for Assistance Rescue and Unmanned Search (ICARUS) projects have been
among the reputable agents recommending essential hard wares and software components for use in
command and control(C2) systems for SAR operation(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017, Tillekaratne,
Werellagama et al. 2021). ICARUS projects have been applauded for making the command-and-control
system for SAR Standard practices with improved architecture, facilities, stakeholders and efficient
information management relevant to disaster management. A standard command and control system can
help the search and rescue process by improving first responder situational awareness, decision-making, and
crisis management by creating intuitive user interfaces that communicate accurate and extensive information
about the crisis and its progression(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017).

According to Govindaraj, Chintamani et al. (2013), a Command control system architecture consists of a
central mission planning and coordination system(MPCS), field-portable robot command and control
subsystems, a portable force feedback exoskeleton interface for robot arm telemanipulation and mobile field
devices. The command and control system provides different UAV search and rescue management functions
regarding identifying victims in crisis quickly and efficiently (Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017). According to
ICARUS, the command and control structures of SAR defined the various actors in SAR and their
 3

interactions with other systems(Govindaraj, Chintamani et al. 2013). The significant stakeholders that
constitute the C2 systems: Disaster victims, local emergency management authorities, crisis data providers,
Search and Rescue first-responders, Search and Rescue Mission planners, SAR UAV operators, SAR Field
team, and crisis stakeholders, among many significant partners.

The present study focuses on the command-and-control structures and their impact on SAR operations using
drones in crisis management. A pictured presentation of SAR drone and C2 systems is shown in figure.1, 2,
3 and 4.

Figure 1, DJI Matrice 210 V2 SAR/LE/Fire

Drone, source: lblasting.com

Figure 2.Actors involved in Command-and-Control Systems in SAR with UAV;

(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017)).

Figure 3.Figure 3. C2 systems deployment and communication framework; (Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017)

Figure 4.. A C2 System Architecture. Source:(Yanmaz, Yahyanejad et al. 2018).

 4

1.2.0. Problem Statement.

Understanding the various facilities and stakeholders that constitute the command-and-control structures for
search and Rescue (SAR) drones' operation is relevant during a crisis or disaster management. Functional
knowledge of facilities, information management, infrastructures and stakeholders that constitute the C2
structures of SAR drones' operations are relevant factors for the efficient Rescue of victims during disaster
periods.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles’ SAR operations are complex and challenging due to inadequate coordination
among entities, limitations of functions among stakeholders, operations skills, regulation hurdles among
personnel, deficient infrastructures, technological failures, and abusive actions at various levels of Search
and Rescue operations. Understanding the various architectural plans, communication management,
facilities and mission planning protocols helps define the rescue process of SAR drone operations.

The timing and capacity are among the factors challenging international search and rescue activities through
UAVs (Okita and Shaw 2019). According to Leonhard, Buchanan et al. (2010), observation of the search
and rescue process during the Hurricane crisis in the USA experienced coordination challenges within the
C2 structure and resource inadequacy(Joseph, Langevin et al. 2009). The challenges of skills among UAV
operators, UAV collisions with obstacles or other flying objects, weather effects, the attitude of UAV
operators, and unstructured operations have been a challenge to SAR missions with UAVs(Eyerman,
Crispino et al. 2018). An organized command and control structure is perceived to improve the SAR process
to safeguard asset damage, loss of reputation, prevent injuries and fatalities of rescue teams, and reduce the
delayed time of victim rescues. The observed challenge has motivated the present study to assess the impact
of command-and-control structures and their relevance during SAR operations using drones.

1.3.0. Research Questions.

1.3.1. Main Research question
What are the possible command and control structures and their impacts in Search and Rescue operations
using UAVs?

1.3.2. Sub research questions.

What are the appropriate facilities and significance in Search and Rescue operations using UAVs?

What is the relevance of Stakeholders in SAR operations using Drones?

What are the potential threats of UAVs and their mitigation in SAR operations?
 5

1.4.0. Research Objectives.

1.4.1. The main research objective.

To explore the possible success factors for command-and-control structures for UAVs in search and
rescue operations.

1.4.2. Sub research objectives.

To examine the appropriate facilities and their significance for search and rescue operations using drones.

To examine the relevance of stakeholders in SAR operations using drones.

To identify the potential threats of UAVs and their mitigations in SAR operations.

1.5.0. Justification of the Study.

There are a plethora of literature and research studies on UAV command and control in SAR operations.
Research studies have not been adequately conducted on the impact of command-and-control structures in
operations of search and rescue drones. It is believed that the present research will contribute much to filling
gaps in the existing knowledge and scientific literature on command-and-control structures for search and
rescue operations using drones or UAVs.

1.6.0. Significance of the study.

The present study will be necessary for researchers, research Institutions, Policymakers, Safety
Organisations, Security Institutes, Students and Teachers. Safety Institutions will find the study relevant in
understanding the various command and control structures and their impact during SAR operations using
UAVs.

The present study will help policymakers understand the appropriate policy to be put in place to support
legal SAR practice with UAVs free from abuses. Teachers and students will find this study relevant as the
knowledge will help expand research capabilities.

1.7.0. Scope.
This study investigates the impact of command-and-control structures in the operations of search and rescue
drones. The command-and-Control Parameters considered in the present study are the deployment
architecture, infrastructures, facilities, stakeholders' information management, and mission planning during
the UAV search and rescue operations.
 6

CHAPTER TWO

METHODOLOGY.

2.0.0. Introduction
This chapter describes the design used in conducting the research study, area of study, target population,
participants, research instrument and Administration, data collection and method of data analysis.

2.1.0. Study Design.

The present study is an exploratory qualitative research design. Qualitative research is a type of research
study that allows ways to explore or investigate the quality of relationships, activities, situations, or
resources(Creswell and Poth 2018, Islam and Aldaihani 2022). The study focuses on exploring, comparing,
and examining the impact of command-and-control structures through the various facilities, and
stakeholders, amongst components that influence SAR drones’ operations. An exploratory study is
applicable when understanding a context seems relevant in knowing the success and failures of an
intervention (Thurmond 2001, Creswell and Poth 2018, Goodrick 2020).

2.2.0. Study Area.

The study considered organizations or stakeholders from the different continents across the globe, the united
state of America, Europe, Australia, Asia and Africa. Countries within these study areas are active in SAR
rescue missions and have integrated the use of UAVs operations when providing relief.

2.3.0 Participants.
The study observed Search and Rescue Agencies from the United States, Germany, South Africa, New
Zealand, Belgium, Britain, and France based on professional knowledge in using UAVs in SAR and active
involvement in national and international relief missions or disaster management. These organizations
considered the use of UAVs service as an integral structure in their operations. The study assessed a global
coverage to help understand the various stakeholders involved in SAR using UAVs, their experiences and
thoughts regarding the phenomenon under investigation.

2.4.0 Sampling.
The study selected SAR organizations based on convenience actively involved in relief missions and UAV
services considered an integral structure in their SAR operations.

The study observes a convenient and purposive sampling technic. Research information was obtained from
professional agencies or stakeholders with SAR experience at their convenience. Participants in the study
were selected based on the convenience of the researchers' access to their available schedule by soliciting
 7

an interview consent at their convenience. Purposively, participants who are active in SAR operations with
UAVs and understand the phenomenon under investigation were identified.

Table 1.0 Search and Rescue Stakeholders by Countries

Search and rescue Organizations Country

Belgian civil protection Organization. A first responder Organization in Belgium
charge of search and rescue operations.
General directorate for civil security and crisis management. France
German Federal Agency for Technical Relief. Germany
Fire and Emergency Organisation. New Zealand
Japan disaster relief Team. Japan
South Africa Urban Search and Rescue Team. South Africa
London Fire Brigade. United Kingdom
US Agency for International Development-Los Angeles County Fire United States of America.
Fairfax County Urban Search and Rescue United States of America
Source: USAR Directory (unocha.org)

2.5.0 Research Instrument and Data collection.

An interview guide with semi-structured open-ended questions was designed and used as the instrument for
data collection by interviewing stakeholders who are actively involved in SAR operations using drones as
a tool for relief assistance.

Stakeholders’ interview was preferred as this allows the researcher to have firsthand data from experienced
professionals actively involved in crisis management and SAR operations, considering UAVs as an
integrated technology considered valuable in emergencies.

An interview guide was designed and structured into two sections. The first section focuses on the general
information of the various organizations or respondent profiles, number of interviewees, interview time,
interview mode, organization country, and global footprint on relief operations or years of operations.

The second section of the interview guide consists of open-ended questions directed at SAR stakeholders
regarding the research variables of command-and-control structures of search and rescue drones' operations.
Questions were asked about the appropriate facilities relevant for SAR missions using UAVs. Questions
about the significant stakeholders that helped define the SAR missions were also observed. Questions were
asked on the challenges experienced during the SAR missions with UAVs and ways of mitigating the
challenges observed.
 8

The interview data for the study was collected using an interview protocol or interview guide through
notetaking and audiotape with prior consent from the respondent. Bias was limited during the data collection
process through active listening to the responses given by the respondent without any injection of opinions
by the researcher to avoid influencing the respondent's views. The use of interviews as the research
instrument for data collection in the present study was appropriate as it allows the respondent to offer
responses without influence. The researcher has the opportunity for further questions to have in-depth
information from the respondent.

2.6.0 Validity.
Validity simply means measuring what is intended to be measured(Creswell and Creswell 2017). The
research instrument validity was observed in two phases: face and content validity. The face validity of the
instrument was validated from peer reviews and supervisor corrections. The tool's content was validated
considering different stakeholders' pilot interviews, and the responses obtained were compared.

2.7.0 Ethical Consideration.

The research study respected individual ethics in all aspects. Ethical considerations and legal procedures
were observed with an authorization or recommendation letter issued by the Heard of Examination Board
and Research School of Transport at Hasselt University, soliciting the various stakeholders relevant to the
study identified by the researcher for their kind assistance and cooperation to the study. An online meeting
mode of interaction through google meet and Microsoft teams was agreed upon and used for the interview
process at the respondent's convenience. A one-on-one in-depth interview method was preferred, allowing
the participating stakeholders to share information comfortably. Engaging the various stakeholders for the
interview was clearly stated, with confidentiality assured through a consent form signed by the researcher
and the respondent agreeing that any data collected will be used strictly for research purposes.

The objectives of the study were clearly explained to the respondents. Respondents were not forced to
provide information but were asked to respond out of their free will. Interview items that were not clear to
the respondent were clarified. The researcher finally ends the Administration of the interview exercise with
words of appreciation to all the stakeholders involved in the study.

2.8.0 Interview response rate.

The study considered nine Search and Rescue organizations in nine countries on four different continents
across the globe actively involved in rescue missions, with UAVs observed as an integral command and
control structure for rescue missions. Invitation for an interview was sent to various organizations through
google meet and the Microsoft team.
 9

Seven Search and Rescue Organizations accepted the interview invitation. They took part in the study
exercise, given a response rate of 77.77%, while two organizations got the interview but later declined due
to tight schedules, given a rating of 22.22%.

The Belgian civil protection organization, German Federal Agency for Technical Relief, the New Zealand
Fire and Emergency Organisation, the South Africa Search and rescue organization, London fire Brigade
and the United States Agency for international development-Los Angeles County Fire all responded to the
interview. At the same time, the Japan Disaster relief team and Fairfax County Urban Search and Rescue in
the USA were unable to meet up with their promised commitment because of their busy schedules

2.9.0 Data Analysis

Preparation for data analysis requires organizing a vast amount of information and transferring it into a
meaningful form for analysis(Creswell and Creswell 2017). The chosen method of data analysis is thematic
analysis. Thematic analysis is an intelligent technique to learn more about individuals’ perspectives,
opinions, expertise and experiences from qualitative data, such as interview transcripts, social media
profiles, or survey responses (Creswell and Creswell 2017).

The recorded data gathered from in-depth interviewing stakeholders of SAR Organizations using UAVs
was transcribed using NVivo version 20.6.1, a transcription software application, and an online interview
transcription platform, otter.ai. The transcribed interview data was organized into a meaningful form. The
data was coded for easy description and development of themes to understand the phenomenon of C2
structures for SAR operations with UAVs. Thematic analysis was preferred as the researcher needed a close
inspection of every word and sentence to capture specific quotes and the meaning of respondent views.
 10

CHAPTER THREE

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction.
The present chapter reviews literature relevant, current, and critical to the impact of command-and-control
structures of UAVs in search and rescue operations. The study literature is reviewed, focusing on the
facilities and stakeholders’ impact on the operational structures of SAR with the use of UAVs and the
operational challenges faced by UAVs during the SAR process and their mitigations are also observed. The
study pays attention to the conceptual, theoretical and empirical frameworks.

3.0.0 Conceptual Review.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles s or drones in disaster management and search and rescue operations have gained
significant attention globally(Yanmaz, Quaritsch et al. 2017, Surmann, Worst et al. 2019). Increasing
research studies have drawn more attention to drones in search and rescue operations. Unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs), popularly known as drones, are becoming the most promising and powerful technology
in improving disaster response and relief operations. UAVs are frequently depicted as game-changers in
disaster relief, gathering data and delivering aid(Washington 2018). UAVs equipped with imaging sensors
can capture timely and usable data for making more informed judgments in post-disaster situations, allowing
for more effective and prompt responses(Htet and Htet 2016). Time is vital in search and rescue efforts, and
any delay can have disastrous effects on human lives. Search and rescue operations can benefit significantly
from unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). UAVs are agile, swift, and capable of autonomous behaviour,
allowing them to carry out actions that would be challenging for humans to carry out at minimal
costs(Waharte and Trigoni 2010). Drones or UAVs can be used to deliver medical kits, vaccines, and blood
supplies quickly in an emergency and help medical professionals, increasing victims' survival rates. It is a
preferable alternative to providing humanitarian relief in naturally afflicted areas because it saves lives in a
much shorter period(Konert, Smereka et al. 2019). Amongst the valuable advantages drones offer is high
definition (HD) aerial imaging, which makes it simple to obtain live photographs and videos during a
disaster such as floods or forest fires and take fast action.
The ability of UAVs to quickly reach a crisis-affected area makes them highly beneficial for disaster
management and life-saving (CHAVAN 2021). With new advancements in technology, drones can
potentially alter the healthcare and medical industries and increase their application in various
fields(CHAVAN 2021).
Drones can give 3D geographic mapping a significant advantage for reaching isolated locations quickly and
operating in hazardous areas if necessary(CHAVAN 2021). Even in low-vision areas, Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles can find their way. Drone technology uses thermal imaging to provide a vision unavailable to the
 11

naked eye. Some modern drones feature sensors that can distinguish between living and dead things. A
major advantage of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles is their ease of maintenance and low cost of
operation(CHAVAN 2021). We can have a safe and successful drone flight if proper rules and regulations
are followed and adequate capacity and capability tests are conducted(Konert, Smereka et al. 2019). The
safety and Security of drones is the major problem concerning the technology as errors in operation can lead
to collisions, accidents, hacking, and other undesirable consequences. Paying more attention to UAVs' safe
operation during emergencies provides the efficiency of its operations.
The European Union has supported several SAR projects, including the SHERPA project, which created
ground and aerial robots to aid alpine SAR(Marconi, Leutenegger et al. 2013). The ICARUS projects also
have contributed much to Unmanned technology in SAR processes, focusing on reducing long deployment
time and improving coordination and integration of devices used during the SAR operation.(Govindaraj,
Chintamani et al. 2013).
Many lives have been lost due to natural catastrophes such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, landslides,
and avalanches (geophysical). Many initiatives are underway to anticipate and forecast natural disasters to
respond promptly and efficiently, assess the damage, repair the outages, and restore normalcy (Erdelj,
Natalizio et al. 2017). Erdelj, Natalizio et al. (2017) recognizes the need to improve disaster resilience with
the use of advanced wireless sensor network (WSN) technology and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to
improve network-assisted disaster prediction, assessment, and response capabilities.
The most important thing to do in a crisis is to save as many people as possible(Hábermayer and Horváth
2020). Search and rescue (SAR) efforts must be carried out rapidly and efficiently in the first 72 hours after
a disaster strikes. During a crisis, the main challenge is communication and situational awareness, which
causes first responder teams to improvise, reducing the efficiency of the rescue mission. (Erdelj, Natalizio
et al. 2017).
The response time of disaster management personnel during a natural disaster is critical in saving the lives
of those in the affected areas. UAV aerial assessment networks provide the most efficient situational
awareness. Different restrictions apply to UAVs; however, specific authorizations are frequently issued to
flying devices during disasters to allow first responders to analyze the situation as rapidly as possible.(Erdelj,
Natalizio et al. 2017, Washington 2018).
Time is essential in search and rescue situations since lives are at stake. The time factor is frequently linked
with uncertainty because the particular location of the people involved is unknown. As a result, search and
rescue personnel are forced to explore a broad area fast(Mayer, Lischke et al. 2019).
SAR operations' most common essential aspects are time and vast space, but natural disasters frequently
create limits that people cannot surmount. Natural disasters such as avalanches, floods, and wildfires are
among the most prevalent natural calamities that make human search and rescue missions extremely
 12

difficult(Mayer, Lischke et al. 2019). In search and rescue scenarios, UAVs have several benefits over
humans. For example, they may be dispatched to any location without the operator knowing the exact
conditions in the target area. The rescuers' risk of injury or death is reduced during the operation. UAVs can
also scan a big area in a short time using the newest tracking and communication techniques(Mayer, Lischke
et al. 2019).
Humans can be identified and tracked using RGB infrared and thermal cameras paired with cutting-edge
machines. The use of swarm intelligence can be utilized to control and operate a large number of UAVs at
once, although the basic control idea remains challenged. Currently, most UAVs are handled by a single
pilot, which limits scalability because extensive labour is required. Multimodal interaction combined with
machine learning can let pilots control one or more UAVs simultaneously.
Nonetheless, making UAVs suitable for search and Rescue necessitates research in various areas, including
battery technology and sensor fusion. However, it believes that many UAVs' communication during an
emergency has significantly improved the SAR process (Mayer, Lischke et al. 2019). When contextualized,
the concept of command and control is observed to meet development gaps and improve UAVs' capabilities
in SAR missions.
The successful operation and coordination of UAVs in Search and Rescue Missions have been influenced
by organized systems or command and control structures. The concept of Command and Control is derived
from Military operation research. Military operations would never have succeeded in the past without
effective command and control, especially the massive operations(Erdelj, Natalizio et al. 2017, Afina,
Inverarity et al. 2020). In past ages, C2 was a simple matter of trumpet calls, battle flags, and screaming
non-commissioned officers (Leonhard, Buchanan et al. 2010). Command and control is defined by the US
Department of Defense as an adequately designated commander exercising power and direction over
dedicated and attached forces to complete a mission. Command and control are considered by Thorstensson
et al. (2001), as quoted by Heumüller, Richter et al. (2012), to be the key to mastering the dynamics of an
emergency operation. Command and control is the configuration of personnel, training, information
management, equipment, and facilities required for a commander or other decision-maker to conduct
operations (Leonhard, Buchanan et al. 2010).
Although the concept of C2 is based on military research, it has been of relevance in civilian search and
rescue missions using UAVs. The concept of C2 is relevant and applicable to future environmental
operations of UAVs and disaster management. Search, and rescue agents have been braved and determined
to carry out rescue missions, but a confused understanding of command and control structure has challenged
several rescue operations(Leonhard, Buchanan et al. 2010).
UAVs have helped rescue stakeholders identify victims faster and relay crisis information more quickly and
timely(Mayer, Lischke et al. 2019). According to Kalloniatis (2018), if the UAV meets the necessary
 13

technical requirements for a rapid search for victims after a crisis event and is adequately integrated into the
command and control structures, it can be an essential tool for gathering information during emergencies.
This type of equipment can significantly shorten the first stage of the command process, and the execution
of rescue measures can therefore begin earlier.
Command and control structures for search and rescue operations are complex and diverse. The diversity is
based on the difference in the emergency at stake. Following the earthquakes in L'Aquila, Haiti, and Japan,
the European Commission acknowledged a significant gap between robotic or UAV technologies developed
for experimental use in laboratory conditions and their concrete counterparts deployed in search and rescue
(SAR) operations and crisis management in the field(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017).

There is literature and research devoted to creating unmanned Search and Rescue tools, but this is in stark
contrast to the practical reality in the field, where unmanned search and rescue equipment face significant
challenges in gaining end-user acceptability. According to (Yanmaz, Quaritsch et al. 2017), many initiatives
call for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in search and rescue operations. Each project focuses on the
advancement of specific components of the system. COMETS, for example, uses a variety of unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs) to assist first responders in locating and monitoring wildfires. CLOSE-SEARCH
focuses on SAR operations in unknown terrain, whereas SHERPA intends to undertake similar operations
specifically in alpine settings. SUAAVE considers hazardous terrain and places a premium on obtaining
imagery for SAR operations in a timely manner(Cameron, Hailes et al. 2010, Yanmaz, Quaritsch et al.
2017). RESCUECELL, on the other hand, is concerned with logistics and involves transporting UAV
systems to disaster-affected locations. However, none of these efforts focuses on a complete system
integration that considers all of the system's coordination, communication, and sensing components.

The Integrated Components of Assisted Rescue and Unmanned Search(ICARUS) project addresses these
difficulties by building a toolkit of integrated components for unmanned Search and Rescue to bridge the
gap between the research community and end-users(Yanmaz, Quaritsch et al. 2017). The Integrated
Components for Assisted Rescue and unmanned search operations (ICARUS) projects have improved
search and rescue practices and missions in a crisis-stricken environment. The requirement for customized
UAVs and their control centres, equipped to provide a comprehensive common operational picture for SAR,
is addressed by the ICARUS C2 intelligent solutions through unmanned search and rescue technologies to
detect, locate, and rescue humans(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017). According to Govindaraj, Letier et al.
(2017), ICARUS projects have contributed much in contextualizing the concept of C2 practically and shared
reliable mechanisms in search and rescue operations. The ICARUS projects have helped public safety
agencies understand how the C2 technology is relevant to disaster management(Khalid, Zakaria et al. 2016).
Providing intuitive user interfaces that provide detailed and extensive information about the crisis and its
 14

evolution, an excellent C2 system should aid the search and rescue operation by improving first responder
situational awareness, decision-making, and crisis management(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017).

3.1.0. Command and Control Systems.

The operational concept of command and control is applicable during emergencies by understanding the
various stakeholders and machines amongst different entities and their integral functions with UAVs for
successful search and Rescue of victims involved in a crisis.

The Local Emergency Management Authority (LEMA) is in charge of the overall command, coordination,
and management of the response operation in a disaster-stricken environment (Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017,
Nazarova and Zhai 2020).

The operational structures of command and control systems, as cited by Khalid, Zakaria et al. (2016) and
Yanmaz, Quaritsch et al. (2017), are made up of a central Mission Planning and Coordination System
(MPCS). Field-portable Robots Command and Control (RC2) subsystems, a portable force feedback
interface for robot arm telemanipulation, and mobile field devices are among the effective C2 systems.
(Khalid, Zakaria et al. 2016).

According to (Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017, Yanmaz, Quaritsch et al. 2017), the C2 system for SAR
consists of ground control stations for controlling and planning missions for UAVs, portable ground control
stations, supervisory interfaces for robot or vehicle systems, assistive search components such as unmanned
aerial vehicles(UAVs), and unmanned surface vehicles (Serrano, De Cubber et al. 2015, Surmann, Worst et
al. 2019). The need for public safety calls for the evaluations of the cognitive competence of the operators
involved within the command and control structure regarding skills, rules, and knowledge-base for effective
supervision and control system for managing Unmanned fleets during rescue operations(Govindaraj, Letier
et al. 2017). Consideration of end users' requirements in the C2 intelligent system design is of relevance as
this make up the principal interfaces between the users and the unmanned platforms in SAR operation.

According to (Serrano, De Cubber et al. 2015, Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017) accepts that C2 intelligent
systems are complex due to multiple user interfaces at various levels of operation. The C2 intelligence
systems interfaces comprise the mission planning and coordination systems (MPCS), an interface for
mission managers and planners, and the Robot or unmanned vehicle command and control interfaces for
Robot or UAV operators. The complexity of C2 systems is adequately managed with the adaptation of the
end-user approach. The end users' requirements are met with the help of understanding the SAR process
and methods through the review of operational scenarios of international search and rescue advisory
group(INSARAG) guidelines. Govindaraj, Letier et al. (2017) accept that the concept of a command-and-
 15

control intelligent system meets the objectives of urban search and Rescue (USAR) and Maritime search
and rescue (MSAR).

3.1.1. The operational scenario of C2.

The C2 system provides several services during SAR operations using UAVs for the timely identification
of disaster victims.(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017). The operational scenarios and procedures are explained
below.

3.1.2. Mission planning and coordination: Immediately after the hardware is set up, the first task for
establishing a C2 system for SAR is to plan the mission and coordination system, disaster data analysis, area
reduction, resource evaluation and assignment, monitoring and coordinating actors and systems in the field,
interactions with stakeholders, reviewing and updating mission plans are just amongst the processes that go
into mission planning.(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017, Yanmaz, Quaritsch et al. 2017).

The C2 system's mission planning and coordination requirements illustrate the need for tools to assist SAR
mission planners in organizing and deploying SAR human and robot or UAV teams in disaster zones. In
addition, the C2 intelligent system must also have a component that allows SAR mission planners to build
mission plans, monitor missions, and make decisions about whether to update or cancel
operations(YILDIZBASI and Lütfü 2020). This subsystem is known as the mission planning and
coordination subsystem (MPCS).

The C2 system allows SAR mission planners to assign SAR resources based on crisis data analysis. With
the help of the MPC tools, SAR resources could be directed to specific crisis sectors' that the SAR mission
planner has identified as crucial(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017, Yanmaz, Quaritsch et al. 2017, Surmann,
Worst et al. 2019). During an operation, the MPCS allows the SAR mission planner to track the progress of
the field and robotic or UAV teams and reallocate or increase resources to one or more sectors. SAR mission
planners would contact field teams as the mission progresses(YILDIZBASI and Lütfü 2020). The MPCS
uses human-in-the-loop intelligent planning systems to automate many high-workload operations that are
typically performed manually by the SAR mission planners. The operational structure of the MPC is human
dependent involving the crisis data provider, local emergency management authority, and SAR mission
planer, with each performing significant function during the MPC process. Figure 5. shows MPC.
 16

Figure 5. Command and control system for mission planning and coordination. Source: (Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017)

3.1.3. UAV Command and control.

Govindaraj, Letier et al. (2017) observed the robot or UAV command and control as a necessary substructure
of the command-and-control system. The main goal is to give robots or unmanned Aerial vehicle operators
the interfaces needed to safely monitor and control a diverse group of robots or autonomous vehicles during
a SAR mission. The unmanned vehicle C2 system consists of all the features required by the unmanned
vehicle operator to monitor and coordinate UAV operations in a disaster zone(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017,
Queralta, Raitoharju et al. 2020, YILDIZBASI and Lütfü 2020). The UAV command and control also
functions as the server for mobile interfaces, routing and updating disaster response teams via mobile
devices. C2 structure's particular function allows robot or unmanned vehicle operators to communicate with
disaster victims during the search and rescue mission.
The principal actor who is expected to use the robot or unmanned aerial vehicle C2 system is the autonomous
vehicle operator who commands and controls the different unmanned platforms (Govindaraj, Letier et al.
2017, Queralta, Raitoharju et al. 2020). The Robot or unmanned vehicle operator receives mission level
directives and plans from the SAR mission planner, who manages the MPC subsystem at the on-site
operations coordination centre (OSOCC). Figure 6 shows the Robot or unmanned vehicle coordination and
control.
 17

Figure 6. Robot or Unmanned vehicle command and control system. Source:(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017)

3.1.4. Mobile interface for Search and Rescue Responders.

The mobile application for first responders is a mobile interface that provides additional capabilities to end-
user during the SAR operation(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017, Nazarova and Zhai 2020, YILDIZBASI and
Lütfü 2020). The mobile application provides a map view that allows the user or rescue team to see the
activities of other field teams, identified victim locations, and the positions of various unmanned vehicles
in the disaster area(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017, Queralta, Raitoharju et al. 2020). The system also allows
the user to transmit messages to the Robot or unmanned aerial vehicle operator, including field observations,
to improve the robot or autonomous vehicle operator's situational awareness.

Figure 7.Figure 8.A presentation of Mobile interface view C2 system. Source:(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017)
 18

3.1.5. Deployment scenario for C2 systems.

Govindaraj, Letier et al. (2017) observed that it is impossible to generalize the impacts of a natural disaster.
Search and rescue work is influenced by several factors, including coverage area, disaster cause, and terrain
characteristics(Okita, Shaw et al. 2021). The typical method followed by foreign teams is to arrive in the
disaster-affected countries and set up an on-site operation and coordination centre (OSOCC) close to the
disaster zone, according to INSARAG guidelines(Hábermayer and Horváth 2020, Okita and Shaw 2020,
Okita, Shaw et al. 2021). The guidelines comprise of three volumes; The first volume provides an overview
of the INSARAG network, understanding of roles and responsibilities, and obligations in supporting and
rendering humanitarian assistance to the affected communities (Auclair, Gehl et al. 2021). Volume two
explains the INSARAG systems and methodologies distributed into manuals A, B, and C. Manual A helps
states develop National SAR capacities and mechanisms as part of the national emergency response
framework. Manual B describes the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders in the SAR operations.
Manual C defines the minimum standards for SAR teams undergoing the INSARAG external classification
and reclassification process to be recognized under the INSARAG framework. The third volume is designed
as a quick reference guide providing field and tactical information for the SAR process(Auclair, Gehl et al.
2021).

In the absence of an alternative coordination structure, the OSOCC facilitates on-site cooperation,
coordination, and information management between international responders and the government of the
impacted country. OSOCC creates a physical location for incoming response teams, serves as a single point
of contact, and directs SAR efforts in a specific disaster area. Sub-OSOCCs are formed at designated disaster
sectors if the disaster is an extensive area (Hábermayer and Horváth 2020). Following the organizational
structure in SAR activities, it's relevant to build C2 intelligent components to apply a comparable structure
in unmanned aerial vehicles system coordination, command, and control during a crisis(Govindaraj, Letier
et al. 2017). In this context, the two C2 systems deployment scenarios are centralized command and control
and distributed command and control, presented in Figures 8 and 9. The distribution of command-and-
control centres enhances the UAV search process. The use of distributed C2 systems acts as a backup in
case of system failure at a particular C2 centre.

3.1.6. Centralized command and control

The OSOCC is a quick response tool that serves as a platform for international response coordination in the
aftermath of a sudden-onset catastrophe or a complicated emergency rapidly deteriorating. The OSOCC is
expected to be within 1 km of all disaster zones in the first scenario. In this scenario, the SAR mission
planner uses the MPCS. The Robot or UAV operator uses the RC2 and exoskeleton, with field teams and
 19

robots undertaking SAR operations in neighbouring designated disaster zones(Govindaraj, Letier et al.
2017). The main operating challenges include adequate data bandwidth for robot or unmanned Ariel vehicles
monitoring and control, a high-frequency channel for force feedback between the unmanned vehicles and
the exoskeleton, and data transfer between the unmanned vehicle C2 and mobile devices. In this scenario,
the SAR mission planner uses the MPCS to track the mission's progress and update the mission plans. The
mission plans are sent to the Robot or unmanned vehicle C2 system, which the UAV operator uses to
command and monitor the UAV's progress. An individual or first responders can carry a mobile device that
runs the mobile application in each disaster zone(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017). The unmanned vehicle
operator will use the mission-specific data provided by the mobile devices to coordinate the unmanned
vehicle. The robot or UAV operator and the SAR mission planner regularly exchange information. The
diagram for the centralized C2 scenario is presented in figure 8.

Figure 8. Centralized deployment scenario of C2 intelligent systems for SAR close to the OSOCC; source;
(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017))

3.1.7 The distributed command and control scenarios.

This scenario aims to create a C2 intelligent system that can adapt to various disaster scenarios, allowing
flexibility and extensibility(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017). When a disaster scenario covers a broad area, or
the disaster sectors are separated by more than 3 kilometres, it might not be feasible for the Robot operators
or unmanned vehicles to be located at a single OSOCC. The reason is that communication latency will affect
 20

the robots or unmanned vehicles' capacity to complete time-critical tasks during the SAR operations. A
distributed OSOCC for C2 will be more appropriate if the disaster covers an ample geographical space.

The MPCS is located at the OSOCC in the distributed command and control scenario, and the SAR mission
planner uses it to construct a mission plan. The MPCS provides mission updates to the Robot or unmanned
ariel vehicle. The autonomous vehicle operator then carries out the mission plan and deploys the robots or
autonomous vehicles at the intervention or disaster location(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017). Data is
exchanged hierarchically in the distributed command and control scenario. All unmanned vehicles or Robot
Command and Control (RC2) systems communicate with the MPCS, which acts as a data server. The robot
or Unmanned Aerial vehicle C2 system similarly coordinates and serves as the data server for the mobile
device, Human Machine Interface, and hosting the robot or unmanned vehicle platforms. The scenario is
depicted in fig 9.

Figure 9.Distributed scenarios for SAR operations performed at different sectors. Source: (Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017)
 21

3.2.0 Facilities of C2 intelligent systems for UAVs.

The application of command-and-control systems in search rescue operations using UAVs requires standard
and reliable infrastructures for an effective search and rescue operation. Several infrastructural architectures
are applicable in SAR depending on the emergency at stake. The C2 system construction comprises several
facilities that influence the adequate performance of the SAR process. The various facilities that support the
C2 system are the U-Space, the various C2 base stations, training facilities for operators as support systems,
and communication assets.

3.2. 1. U-space

The U-space is a combination of services and procedures designed to ensure that many drones have safe,
efficient, and secure access to airspace. (Si-Mohammed, Bouaziz et al. 2020). U-space services can assist
in processing UAS flight authorizations and offer operators the tools and information they need to plan safe
flights, avoid collisions with other aircraft, and comply with each member state's environmental, security,
and privacy standards. These services are essential for maintaining an orderly flow of unmanned traffic and
alerting authorities to any conditions that could put people or property on the ground in danger.

The European Union has instituted a new U-space service to enable unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
management and conflict prevention for flights to ensure reliable operational safety and efficient and secure
access to the airspace (Lieb and Volkert 2020, Si-Mohammed, Bouaziz et al. 2020). Understanding the U-
space during SAR operations with UAV has a significant role in preventing UAV collisions with other air
space users(Lieb and Volkert 2020).

3.2.2 Development of training and support tools.

Providing human crisis managers with inadequate expertise in using technological tools will lead to
ineffective SAR operations. A practical function needs extensive training and support infrastructure. An
important trend to consider is designing trainer-simulators and enabling e-learning(De Cubber, Doroftei et
al. 2013, Balta, Bedkowski et al. 2017). The execution advanced sophisticated training of future SAR
operators, requiring several types of simulation (ground, air, and water) to be designed and integrated.
Training tools should be able to simulate predetermined scenarios in which virtual robots or unmanned
vehicles convey sensor data to a rescue service's Command and Control Component that will analyze the
simulated emergency and respond appropriately(De Cubber, Doroftei et al. 2013, Balta, Bedkowski et al.
2017).

Furthermore, scenarios will be recorded from previous events and then re-run for training reasons with this
application. In order to offer a scenario snapshot to the rescue team and thus assist decision-making, the
 22

Command and Control Component for support rescue services will integrate all sources of spatial
information such as maps of the impacted area, satellite photos, and sensor data from unmanned aerial
vehicles(De Cubber, Doroftei et al. 2013, Balta, Bedkowski et al. 2017). The training of rescue missions
requires an interactive human-machine interface that employs semantic information to operate unmanned
vehicles to be deployed. Unmanned vehicles will be assigned to rescue teams by the Command and Control
Component, coordinating control decisions so that tasks may be completed with less risk(De Cubber,
Doroftei et al. 2013, Balta, Bedkowski et al. 2017).

3.2.3 Communication Assets.

Human and robotic or unmanned vehicle teams working in SAR circumstances with hostile operational
conditions require appropriate communication assets to ensure a highly available, real-time networking
capability. Mobile and wireless communication capability for all concerned entities with minimal
deployment and coordination effort, individual and group communications with guaranteed quality and
prioritization capability, high capacity and range, security, and power efficiency are essential(De Cubber,
Doroftei et al. 2013, Si-Mohammed, Bouaziz et al. 2020). Serrano, De Cubber et al. (2015) Serrano, De
Cubber et al. 2015) Serrano, De Cubber et al. (2015) accepts the communication system should encourage
self-coordination and spectrum resource optimization using cross-layer cognitive radio. Maximizing
network usefulness and reducing interference, Self-coordination and spectrum resource optimization using
cross-layer cognitive radio, maximizing network usefulness and reducing interference(Serrano, De Cubber
et al. 2015, López, Moreno et al. 2017). The communication asset should support a Security strategy with
granular encryption, integrity, and authentication. According to (Si-Mohammed, Bouaziz et al. 2020),
Communication technology is the key enabler to unlocking the potential of UAV operations. The 5G mobile
network is envisioned as the communication standard for various UAV operations and applications(Si-
Mohammed, Bouaziz et al. 2020).

3.2.4 UAVs Command and control base stations.

The command-and-control base station or ground control stations (GCS) are in charge of mission planning
for unmanned systems to explore and map the disaster scene. The GCS helps in mission planning, processing
tactical information, studying the mission maps, calibrating flight routes, and providing planning data to the
SAR operators(Balta, Bedkowski et al. 2017). The ground control base stations play a vital role in supporting
all SAR missions of UAVs. The ground control stations (GCS) hold the intelligence on unmanned aerial
vehicles' operation. The GCS is the main link to the drone as it serves as the main interface to the UAV in
the air. Mission planning and control stations are other names for a UAV ground control station. Mission
planning mainly affects the UAVs' flight path. Control refers to the operator's requirements for commanding
 23

the complete UAVS or drone system during flight and completing corresponding actions. The ground
control station helps control the payload according to the mission requirements and monitors the mission's
execution by displaying the payload status.

According to (Balta, Bedkowski et al. 2017), a GCS should consist of a GPS receiver that provides a global
position for network management, a computer system that hosts the software for the unmanned vehicle, and
a modular battery slabs with onboard power control units. The command-and-control station can provide
six hours of power autonomous without depending on an external power source. The standard weight for
the portable GCS during deployment is approximately 25Kg, 94.4cm long, 53cm wide, and 31.16cm high,
which is a requirement indicated by the Belgian First Aid and Support Team(B-FAST).(Balta, Bedkowski
et al. 2017). The GCS used during SAR operations can be portable command and control base stations,
transportable C2, and fixed site C2 stations (Balta, Bedkowski et al. 2017). The employment of different
types of Ground control stations is for mechanical backup encase a particular control station fails. Figures
10, 11 and 12 show various Command and control base stations applicable in a SAR operation.

Figure 10.Fixed side C2 base station. Source: https://www.kratosdefense.com/products/uav/air/uav-

command-and-control.

Figure 11.. Portable command and control base station. Source:(Balta, Bedkowski et al. 2017)
 24

Figure 12.. Transportable C2 base station. Source: https://www.kratosdefense.com/products/uav/air/uav-command-and-

control.

3.3.0. Stakeholders.
The command-and-control structures for search and rescue operations with the use of UAVs will have a
relevant impact when an understanding of the various stakeholders that constitute the SAR process is known
along the multiple roles performed during an emergency (Burke, McWhirter et al. 2019, Kosmas, Acciaro
et al. 2022). The UAV Command and control structures for SAR are highly influenced by the interactions
of several stakeholders involved at various levels of rescue operation(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017). The
different actors that constitute the C2 system of SAR operation share a responsible wealth of resources and
intelligence for successfully managing assets and victim rescue during the emergency period.

The various stakeholders identified by (Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017) and their various responsibilities in
SAR are; the disaster victims, the local emergency management authority, crisis data provider, SAR first
responder, SAR mission planner, SAR robot or UAV operators, SAR, field team amongst others community
crisis stakeholders. According to (Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017), the responsibilities of the local emergency
management authority are to coordinate the mission plan and define the mission update during an
emergency. The crisis data provider's responsibility is to generate the mission and update the mission plan.
The SAR mission planner provides a common operational picture visualization and is also responsible for
aborting the SAR and rescue mission(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017, Burke, McWhirter et al. 2019). The
first responder provides a view of the search map, takes photos, sends and receives messages, and note
creation. The SAR field team is responsible for controlling search robots or unmanned vehicles,
coordinating the field teams, and transferring control to the SAR robot or UAV operator(Govindaraj, Letier
et al. 2017, Kosmas, Acciaro et al. 2022).
 25

Amaratunga, Haigh et al. (2020) accepts that the national, provincial, district, and divisional levels and
several government ministries administrators are the major stakeholders in any crisis response.
Acknowledging victims as initial responders, NGOs, Volunteers, and communities must be carefully
integrated into the response mechanism.

Stakeholders' influence in the command-and-control system of SAR with UAVs must adhere to the
international standard for best practices. The international organisation for standardization defined a
standard is a set of rules, guidelines, characteristics, or specifications that can be applied consistently to
verify that materials, products, processes, and services are suitable for their intended application. Achieving
success in UAVs operation in SAR can be possible when standardization procedures are utilized while
minimizing the risk of inheriting undesirable or restricting complexity(Okita, Shaw et al. 2021).

International organizations play a vital role in influencing the standard of SAR and rescue operations (Okita,
Shaw et al. 2021). International search and rescue advisory group (INSARAG), founded in 1991 under the
auspices of the United Nations, has been among the prime agency to foster the exchange of capacities
between national urban search and rescue groups.(Okita, Sugita et al. 2018, Amaratunga, Haigh et al. 2020,
Balcerzak, Jasiuk et al. 2021). The INSARAG External Classification (IEC) technique has ensured that all
international SAR teams meet minimal operational standards(Erdelj, Król et al. 2017, Balcerzak, Jasiuk et
al. 2021).

3.3.0 Challenges of UAV in search and Rescue.

The operation of UAVs during an emergency requires many technical and professional skills and checks to
guarantee a successful mission. The healthy state of the technology and the operator's skills are a signal
mandate when performing a UAV operation, either in a SAR operation or in any relevant emergency mission
(Rubio-Hervas, Gupta et al. 2018). The successful use of UAVs in search and rescue missions needs a
system evaluation to understand the various mechanical, legal, and social risks involved and reliable safety
mechanisms to prevent unfavourable outcomes that can jeopardize the search and rescue operations.

Unmanned Aerial vehicles are exposed to the risk that can lead to operation failure. The risk includes high
altitude loss, loss of communication, collision with manned or unmanned aircraft or buildings, electrical
lines, Navigation systems that are partially or entirely down, Severe weather or climatic events, corrosion,
etc. The pilot is unfamiliar with the location. Take-off and landing mishaps and rotor failures(Wackwitz and
Boedecker 2015, Rubio-Hervas, Gupta et al. 2018). The putting in place of a risk detection mechanism is
viewed by (Wackwitz and Boedecker 2015, Rubio-Hervas, Gupta et al. 2018) as the top prevention
mechanism that will act as safety checks during rescue operations. Rubio-Hervas, Gupta et al. (2018)
identified flight operations data analysis, flight reports, maintenance reports, safety audits or assessments,
 26

and voluntary reporting of near misses or accidents as significant to SAR managers during rescue missions.
Rubio-Hervas, Gupta et al. (2018) further accept the establishment of a risk prevention mechanisms by
creating a UAS safety risk database that includes safety hazards and mitigation measures and a risk
monitoring mechanism, voluntary and required reporting systems and a safety culture.

3.4.0 Theoretical Review.

3.4.1 Bowtie Model of risk management.

The operation of UAVs in search and rescue missions is technically complex due to the advanced technology
inbuilt for its efficient operation. The successful operation will require knowledge of experts and safety
mechanisms that will prevent risks of failures and avoid unwanted consequences. The Bowtie risk
management model is more suitable for being a reliable tool to identify perceived risks and provide
mitigation mechanisms to prevent unfavourable outcomes.

Bowtie is the term given to the risk assessment model because of the diagram's unusual shape, which
resembles a dress bowtie. A fault tree analysis (FTA), an event tree analysis (ETA), and a barrier
analysis(BA) are all represented in the diagram; as a result, the Bowtie is often called a barrier diagram(Aust
and Pons 2019). The Bowtie's origin is yet to be known; however, it was first described in 1979 in Imperial
Chemical Industries' lecture notes for a hazard analysis seminar at the University of Queensland in
Australia(Aust and Pons 2019). The Royal Dutch Shell Group is thought to have been the first to use the
Bowtie approach as a risk management tool in the early 1990s, in reaction to the Piper Alpha oil and gas
platform disaster in the North Sea (1988) and the Seveso Directive(Aust and Pons 2019). The Seveso
Directive resulted in European Union legislation to prevent and mitigate significant accidents. (Aust and
Pons 2019). The various preceding risk assessment methods that provided the context for the Bowtie to
emerge are namely, the fault tree analysis (FTA), event tree analysis (ETA), cause consequences analysis
(CCA), and the analysis of the barriers (BA). A review of the Bowtie Model presented by Aust and Pons
(2019) is described below.

3.4.2 Fault tree analysis:

There are two uses for fault tree analysis as a technique. It is most frequently used to forecast and prevent
potential problems during the system design and development stage. The second application of FTA is in
accident investigation. The FTA helps identify and analyze the root causes that contribute to the critical
event, frequently referred to as the top event, through several failure paths or loss of control or failure. FTA's
significant advantage is the graphical presentation of complex interactions between distinct failure paths
and combinations of probable outcomes.
 27

3.4.3 Event tree analysis.

Unlike fault trees, which begin by identifying causes and work their way up to the top event, event trees
start with a single leading event and examine all possible system failure paths that lead to the beginning
event's consequences. Each route can be assigned a probability, allowing the possibility of various outcomes
to be determined, making the method qualitatively applicable. The risk estimate can be performed before
an accident to decide potential repercussions or after an accident to identify system functioning problems.
The event tree analysis (ETA) has the constraint of only analyzing one initiation event at a time. As a result,
it is ineffective when numerous events must co-occur, resulting in redundant branches.

3.4.4 Cause consequence analysis.

The analysis connects the cause and consequences through a combination of two diagrams. A typical fault
tree is a cause diagram that leads to the top event. On the other hand, the consequence diagram is an event
sequencing diagram that attempts to identify possible outcomes of the leading event. The visual depiction
of complicated cause-effect linkages, the structured approach for probability assessment, and the inclusion
of system dependencies in the risk assessment are all advantages of the cause and consequences analysis.
Using FTA logic, the CCA seeks to determine the probability of each outcome. One disadvantage of the
CCA is that it can only examine one initiating event at a time.

3.4.5 Barrier analysis.

Barrier analysis is a system safety assessment method for identifying risks and evaluating any measures
that could prevent the occurrence of an event. Barrier assessment is now more widely utilized for any
process that requires maintaining a controlled condition, such as quality, safety, security, and health.

The barrier assessment is simple to comprehend since it graphically depicts the existing barriers and the
absence of any obstacles that could have prevented or minimized an undesirable event.

3.4.6 Principle of Bowtie analysis.

The Bowtie approach is a combination of the previous two procedures. It combines a simplified FTA and
ETA, both without the logic symbols, using the CCA technique and single cause–consequences relation.
These other functional blocks are substituted with barriers, which are put on both sides of the diagram to
prevent or reduce undesirable results. The structure is horizontally built out, whereas the other charts are
vertically laid out, resulting in the distinctive shape with the central knot and thus the Bowtie name. There
exist no standard terminology for the various components of a Bowtie, which frequently leads to
misunderstanding. The following definitions come from the Civil Aviation Authority of the United
 28

Kingdom (UK CAA), the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and the Federal Aviation
Administration.

3.4.7 Hazards.

A hazard is a condition or activity that can cause harm or damage, such as personal injury, equipment,
property, or environmental damage, or a diminished ability to complete an action as intended.

3.4.8 Top events.

The top event occurs when a hazard's regulated condition is lost. It has yet to do any harm or negatively
influence, but if all preventative barriers fail, it could lead to unfavourable outcomes. The term top event
comes from fault tree analysis, in which the critical event is at the very top.

3.4.9 Threats.

Threats can lead to the occurrence of the designated top event through numerous routes if all safety barriers
are breached. One or more threats can trigger the top event.

3.4.10. Consequences.

Consequences are possible outcomes or a chain of events that can occur after the top event is released,
resulting in a loss of control or damage if all mitigation barriers fail.

3.4.11 Barriers.

Barriers, also known as controls or layers of protection, are mechanisms that avoid or minimize
unfavourable consequences or lower the possibility of them occurring while preserving the desired state.
The barriers can be classified depending on their location in the Bowtie diagram and their purpose, as
determined via fault tree and event tree analysis. Prevention barriers are on the left side of the Bowtie
diagram between the threat and the top event. They either eliminate the threat or prevent the top event from
occurring and the hazard from being unleashed. When the top event occurs, mitigation barriers kick in,
reducing the chance of an unfavourable outcome.

3.4.12 Escalation factors and barriers.

Safety barriers are not perfect, and they have inherent and temporal weaknesses. The conditions that
influence efficacy in Bowtie are referred to as escalation factors, degradation factors, or barrier decay
mechanisms and are shown using branches from the main path barrier. Figure. 13 shows a diagrammatical
presentation of a bowtie and its constituent elements.
 29

Figure 13. A schematic bowtie with prevention and recovery barriers. Source (Aust and Pons 2019)

3.4.13 Bowtie Model application.

The current research focuses on command-and-control structures and how they affect UAV search and
rescue missions. The application of the Bowtie model is to evaluate the various hazards, top events, threats,
consequences, barriers and escalating factors that should be identified for safe operations and the mitigating
factors to prevent the perceived and observed risks.

3.4.14 Hazard and top event Identification.

The command-and-control structures in search and Rescue with UAVs require a significant level of safety
to prevent hazards and events that can risk operation failure. The present study's identified hazards and top
events and UAV safety and loss of control, respectively.

3.4.15 Threats and preventive barriers identification.

The various threats perceived to influence operation failure are unskilled system operators, weather
conditions, component failure, network failure, collision with flying objects or birds, power failure or battery
failure, and camera failure.

The identified prevention barriers are training and development of operators, medical insurance, use of
advanced weather forecast equipment, visual inspections, approved UAV models, use of advanced
technology to detect wind direction, advanced wireless network services, and maintenance department.
 30

3.4.16 Consequences and Recovery Barriers.

The SAR operation can encounter failures when the preventive mechanisms are insufficient to overcome
the identified threats. The operational failure of SAR with UAVs can lead to undesirable consequences. The
study observes asset damage, injuries and fatalities of operators amongst significant stakeholders, loss of
reputation of the rescue team, operational delays, and financial loss as the consequences of a functional
failure.

Safety is ensured when additional recovery barriers are implemented to mitigate the severity of the
consequences. The study identified the installation of air-bag systems along with the UAVs and emergency
procedures back up as the recovery barriers that should be implemented to reduce the severity of the
consequences of failures in UAV operation search and rescue

3.4.17 Escalating factors.

Escalation factors are experienced when the preventive barriers implemented are not adequate to prevent
the manifestation of threats and consequences. The study identified that effective visual supervision
standards procedures have not been sufficient to prevent the threat of Component failures. Incompetency of
an unskilled UAV operator or personnel during SAR missions is a potential risk. The study identified
training and development as an additional preventive barrier to prevent the threat of mal-operation. The
figure 4 shows the risk management analysis for C2 UAVs in search and Rescue.

Figure 4. Bowtie risk management for C2 structure of UAV in SAR operations

 31

3.5.0 Scenario for Command-and-control system application with UAV: the case of the Balkan
Flooding in 2014.

The floods in the Balkans in 2014, observed an unmanned aerial system equipped with powerful 3D data
processing algorithms that were deployed to assist with rescue efforts. Amongst the SAR agency, the
Belgian first aid and support team (B-FAST) team leader concluded by saying that the aerial inspection
performed by the UAS in two hours saved the team three days. Such significant time savings can mean the
difference between life and death in critical situations(Balta, De Cubber et al. 2015). The tools(UAVs) were
used to assist relief teams in assessing damage and locating landmine-affected regions. The response teams
that came into contact with the unmanned tools reacted positively. The practical and effective structured,
coordinated application of UAVs in managing the crisis in Balkan proves the reliability of the technological
command structure for search and rescue operations with UAVs.
 32

CHAPTER FOUR.

4.0.0. Findings.
This chapter considers the presentation and analysis of transcribed interview data into thematic tables, verification, and interpretation of findings.
Respondents' identity is kept anonymous and confidential for ethical reasons. The name of the individual respondents interviewed, and the various
search and rescue organisations were not disclosed. The transcribed interview data were classified into themes for comprehensive analysis. The
interviewed respondents of the different search and Rescue Organizations (SARO) are presented in thematic tables coded and identified as SARO 1,
SARO 2, etc.

Table 2.0. General information about Respondents and Organization for SAR operations with Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.

UAV Org Involve in Number of Interview Interview Position held Years of Country
in SAR SAR interviewees mode time Experience
missions?
SARO 1 Yes 1 Google meet 51 min Cluster Manager-SAR 4 Belgium
SARO 2 Yes 1 Google meet 1hr 27min Senior officer (USAR) 4 Germany
SARO 3 Yes 1 Microsoft 48min Drone pilot 6 France
teams.
SARO 4 Yes 1 Google meet 43min Chief Remote Pilot (USAR) 5 New Zealand
SARO 5 Yes 1 Google meet 42min Battalion Chief for technical 4 USA
operations
SARO 6 yes 1 Google meet 54min Team leader; drone pilots. 5 United Kingdom
SARO 7 yes 1 Google meet 56min Team leader USAR 3 South Africa
 34

The findings from the in-depth interview information, as presented in Table 2, show all the participating
respondents of the various relief organizations interviewed have significant exposure to search and rescue
operations using UAVs ranging from three to six years of experience. The findings also show that all the
interviewed organizations were willing to participate by spending more than the expected 30min agreed for
the study exercise. The study also reveals that all stake stakeholders contacted for the interview exercise
have significant experience of four, five and six years with UAV operations with search and rescue missions.
 35

4.1.0. Exploring the possible command-and-control structures for UAVs in search and rescue operations.
Table 3. Observed C2 structures for SAR operations with UAVs by respondents.

Themes SARO1 SARO2 SARO3 SARO4 SARO5 SARO6 SARO7

Operational First responders, UAV Team UAV teams, Operational First responders, -Incident commander. UAVs field
structures. servicemen, Tele pilots, and manager, UAV team, -UAV team operators, Team
UAV Team, UAV compliance managers,
technicians. manager, lead Incident
pilot, drone team. managers,
UAV technicians
Organizational Civil protection German Civil Ministry of Local The local authority Air traffic system, The federal
structures. organization, protection interior and emergency of the disaster Police department government,
police organization, the emergency management environment, the USAR group,
department, local federal management police department, Local government
authority,
LEMA, government. authority. and the federal and community
government.
Mission UAV team does UAV team does UAV team does UAV team does The UAV team do The mission is UAV
planning. mission mission planning mission planning mission planning the mission planned by the reconnaissance
planning planning. incident commander team planes
and UAV team mission.
Coordination User OSOCC, user On-site OSOCC Mobile control Command support Incident
systems or On- coordination coordination cells operation and centres, incident unit, or the use of command systems
site operation cells. (UCC), ICML coordination command units command cells (ICS), forward
and coordination dashboards. centres (OSOCC (UCC). control points.
centres
(OSOCC)
 36

The general opinion of all the SAROs with UAVs appreciate the use of command-and-control structures
relevant during search and rescue missions. These institutes observe operational and organisational
structures as pertinent factors influencing UAVs' SAR operation. The use of coordination systems or Onsite
operation and coordination centres and mission planning protocol was acknowledged as amongst the
structures considered when performing relief operations with the help of drones or UAVs.

Most search and rescue organisations (SARO1, SARO3, SARO4, SARO5) using UAVs for relief missions
accept the relief operational structure composed of UAV teams as their first responders. Furthermore, other
SAROs agrees with using additional functional, active structures such as UAV tele pilots, incident
commanders, and operational managers to be relevant entities that improve the operational structures during
relief missions using UAVs. Most search and rescue organisations accept local emergency management
authorities as relevant entities that comprise relief operations' organisational structure. State bodies such as
the civil protection organisation, Ministry of interiors, police department, and air traffic systems were among
the corporate command and control structures acknowledged for playing vital roles in relief operations using
drones.

More also, three search and rescue organisations (SARO1.SARO2. SARO6) accept the use of User-control-
center (UCC) for effective coordination of relief missions with UAVs. Two searches and rescue
organisations (SARO5, and SARO7) accept the use of incident control units as a relevant structure for relief
operations with UAVs. Three Searches and Rescue Organization (SARO2,3,4) agrees with using an onsite
operation and coordination centre as a proper structure for command and control for relief operations using
UAVs. Finally, the position of coordination system, mission planning, and operational and organisational
structures was observed by all the respondents to relevant command and control structures of UAVs in
search and rescue missions.
 37

4.2.0. Facilities relevant for search and rescue operations with UAVs.

Table 4. Facilities perceived by respondents for UAVs in Search and Rescue operations.

Themes SARO1 SARO2 SARO3 SARO4 SARO5 SARO6 SARO7

Command Mobile Base Base stations Command Command and Command tents, Base stations, Mobile base
centres. stations for C2. are established. and control control base mobile base stations.
C2 Tents base stations stations stations.
Communication Available Available Available Available Public Satellite Available Mobile Available
assets satellite network, Satellite Satellite Satellite network, Mobile server, Satellites
4G network., network, network, 4G network. Mobile phones, 4G Satellite network, network.
Mobile phones. Incident network., phones network, Handsets, Mobile phones
management mobile Incident
dashboard. phones, management
mobile phones Incident dashboards.
management
dashboards.
Drone DJI 600, Mavic DJI 310 DJI phantom DJI300, DJI DJI 300 DJI300, Mavic. DJI 300
types/models enterprise. 4, Matrices 310, Quantum DJI Inspire,
300, Mavic. trinity,
quadcopter
Transport Mobile vans. SAR mobile Field vans Mobile incident Field vehicles Field vehicles Mobile incident
facilities Vans command command
vehicles. vehicles
Knowledge of UAV flights are UAV flights are Networked U-space is Flight is bound -UAV Cannot fly Flights are
U-space restricted and restricted and with civil highly regulated and controlled above 400feets. restricted and
 38

controlled in air controlled in air aviation to with advanced in air traffic -communicate controlled in air
traffic zones. traffic zones, understand technological zones, with National air traffic zones.
restricted air software that traffic (NAT).
zones. monitors field
UAV operations
Training Training and Available Firemen Fire Emergency Fire Institutes. Trained by drone Training is
Institutes. certification Training institute, Institute. Drones Institute service providers, provided by tech
from drone Institute for Drones Inservice training, providers and
Institutes. UAV operators. Institute and trained by the organised
police for workshops for
capacity building. capacity building.

The general observation of all the search and rescue organisations recognises UAVs for search and rescue missions involve using established facilities
for effective operation. A general observation from all the seven SAROs considered in the study acknowledges the establishment of command
centres, communication assets, Drones or UAVs models, Training Institutions, working knowledge of U-space, and availability of relevant
transportation facilities for an effective search rescue operation. All seven respondents accepted the use of UAV base stations for effective UAV
search rescue missions. Two respondents (SARO2 and SARO5) accept the command tents as among the facilities they considered when performing
a SAR operation with a UAV in the disaster zone.
 39

All the respondents accepted satellite communication networks as a valuable asset relevant for an effective
SAR operation using UAVs. Mobile phone gadgets were also assistive, as observed by all the respondents.
Three respondents (SARO2, SARO3, SARO5) accept the incident management dashboard when performing
SAR operations using UAVs. All respondents admit Satellite networks for fast data transfer with UAVs in
search and rescue operations.

All seven respondents accepted the use of DJI drones as a reliable model for SAR operation. The use of
different models of DJI drones was observed from the responses of all the respondents. DJI 600, DJI, 300,
DJI 310. The various SAROs observed DJI inspire and DJI quantum four as models frequently used for
search and rescues. Mavic and matrices were other additional models regarded by (SARO2 and SARO6) as
among the model employed in their SAR missions. All the respondent observes the relevance of mobile
vehicles or mobile incident command vehicles as a reliable resource considered by responders when
carrying out SAR operations with UAVs in the disaster zone. It was also observed that all respondents
accepted to have a working knowledge of U-space when it comes to UAVs in search and rescue missions.
All respondents agree to understand flight restrictions and control in air traffic zones. More also, SARO 6
observed the 400feets as the maximum flight Hight the UAV is permitted to fly along with air space
restrictions with the help of National and air traffic. Training for Drones pilots are observed to be conducted
in training Institution, police (SARO1, SARO2), civil protection Institutes (SARO 3, SARO4, SARO5), and
Drones service providers (SARO 6, SARO7). Finally, it was observed that all the respondents accept the
position of Facilities to be an essential structure for search and rescue with UAVs.
 40

4.3.0. Stakeholders for UAV in search and rescue missions.

Table 5. Stakeholders observed in SAR operations using UAVs

Themes SARO1 SARO2 SARO3 SARO4 SARO5 SARO6 SARO7

Immediate LEMA, UAV Incident UAVs UAV team, Police UAV team leader, Drone pilots, UAV team.
SAR team, Drone commanders, operators, State rescue squad
actors. pilots and drone UAV team, civil aviation officer, leads the
technicians drone pilots. authority operation,
NGOs. INSARAG INSARAG INSARAG INSARAG, INSARAG provide INSARAG provide INSARAG
provide standard provide standard provide standard guidelines. standard guidelines standard guidelines. provide
guidelines. guidelines guidelines. standard
guidelines
Non- Police, Ministry German Ministry of the Civil protection Local jurisdictions UK Civil aviation The local
NGOs. of interior Ministry of interior. agency, Civil help the UAV team authority provides government
interior assist aviation with pre-informed laws to fly UAVs. regulate UAV-
with the cost data needed for SAR
needed for operations. operation.
operations.
 41

The position of stakeholders was observed as an essential indicator amongst the various stakeholders
involved in the study. All the seven respondents involved in search and rescue operations with UAVs accept
that UAV teams are the prime actors that must be present in any given relief mission where UAV operation
is considered relevant. The presents of drone pilots (SARO1, 2, 6), Drone technicians (SARO1,4), state civil
aviation authority (SARO 4), and rescue squared officer (SARO, 5) was also observed to compose the active
stakeholders that should be considered in any UAV search and rescue operation. Moreover, all the
respondents accepted and acknowledged the United Nations international search and rescue advisory group
(INSARAG) guidelines, a relevant body with significant assistance with rules that direct effective search
and rescue operations.

Stakeholders such as the Ministry of interior (SARO1,2,3,7), civil protection agency (SARO4), civil
aviation agency (SARO4,6), Local jurisdiction (SARO5), Local government (SARO7) and state police
(SARO1) were observed as influencing the search and rescue missions of the various organisation in their
respective countries. Finally, all the interviewed respondent accepts the influence of stakeholders relevant
when conducting a search and rescue operation with UAVs.
 42

4.4.0. Identified threats of UAVs in SAR operations and their mitigations.

Table 6. Challenges observed in SAR operations with the use of UAVs and perceived mitigations

Themes SARO1 SARO2 SARO3 SARO4 SARO5 SARO6 SARO7

Mechanical Battery Battery life. Battery model. Battery life. Battery life. UAV Battery UAV Battery
challenges. capacity to Standardized Standardization Cost of Maintenance cost. Capacity. Capacity.
support long kits. of best drone maintenance.
light. Maintenance models.
cost.
Human Inadequate Evolution of Not fully able Regulations. Limited human -UAVs are not -UAVs are
challenges. capacities. UAV to find a focal Still reluctant to capacities. accepted in not accepted
-UAVs are not technology. point for using accept UAV Regulations are international in
accepted in -Inadequate drones in good technology. limiting integration. relief missions. international
international capacities. conditions. Limited - UAVs are not -Capacities are relief
relief missions. - UAVs are The fast capacity to accepted in inadequate. missions.
not accepted evolution of manage the international relief Limited pilots and Capacities
in UAV technology. missions. technicians are
international technology is a inadequate.
relief challenge. Limited
missions. pilots and
technicians
Natural Raining and Windy and Windy and Windy and Hurricane/Windy Raining and Raining and
challenges. windy weather. raining raining rainy weather and rainy weather is windy weather. windy
weather. weather. affects the a hurdle weather
operation
 43

Mitigations. -Improved -Improved -Improved -Improved -Improved battery -Improved battery -Improved
battery models. Battery battery models battery model. model. models. weather battery
-International model. that can sustain -Capacity -International legal resilient UAV models.
regulations UAV Models long hours of should be regulations should be models. -Training
that operate
should be flight. improved with established to permit -Regulations costs should
in adverse
instituted to weather -UAV Models more pilots global acceptance. should be enacted be
conditions.
approve global with resilient trained at -UAV models that to approve global subsidised.
Regulations
acceptance. that architecture to subsidised costs can adapt to adverse utility. - Mechanism
encouraged
-Subsidised function in in drone weather are needed. - Training cost of for global
global
Training cost acceptance adverse Institutes. pilots and acceptance
of UAV use
of Technicians weather -Improve drone technicians should be put
in relief
and pilots. missions conditions. models to should be in place.
-Adverse -The withstand subsidised.
weather subsidised cost weather
resilient UAV of Training of challenges.
models. UAV pilots
and
technicians.
 44

The general observation of all the interviewed respondents accepts the existence of mechanical, Human and
natural challenges experienced with UAVs in search and rescue operations. Moreover, all the seven
interviewed respondents accept the UAV challenges of sustaining long hours of flight during search and
rescue missions due to battery capacity. Furthermore, all respondents accepted inadequate professional
abilities in search and rescue operations with drones as the obstacles faced in SAR missions. The challenges
of meeting up with the rapid technological evolution of UAVs in the SAR field is a concern expressed by
two respondents (SARO2, SARO3). The issue of reluctance to accept UAVs in international disaster
management was told by all interviewed respondents. The challenge of rain and windy weather was
expressed as among the challenges experienced with UAVs during search and rescue operations.

All the respondents proposed an improved UAV battery model as a solution that will facilitate UAV more
hours of flight during search and rescue missions. Most of the respondents also observed the use of resilient
UAV models for relief missions that are resilient to adverse weather conditions as among the proposed
solution. The cost of training UAV pilots and technicians was accepted to be subsidised by most of the
interviewed respondents. Finally, almost all the respondents accept the observed mechanical, natural, and
professional challenges experienced with UAVs in search and rescue operations, all proposing solutions
based on individual needs and perceptions.
 45

4.5.0. Summary of respondents’ views on Command-and-control structures of SAR Drones operations.

Table 7. Summary of perceived relevance of C2 structures for SAR with UAVs.

Themes SARO1 SARO2 SARO3 SARO4 SARO5 SARO6 SARO7

Advantages. Reduces Time spent in -Effective -Provides the UAV -Effective Assesses a -Assess a
responders’ disaster coordination commander with coordination of disaster zone in a disaster zone
risk in assessment is of disaster. quick information for SAR operations. short time period. within a
assessing short. -Less time decision making. -Rapid damage -Quick disaster short time
unsafe zones. -less costly spent in -Help cost reduction assessment. area mapping. period.
-Limited time services. mapping and in disaster -Reduced risk of -UAV services -A relevant
spent in -Reduces risk assessing a management because responders are less costly. tool in
assessing a exposed to disaster zone. of time. getting into -provide a broader assessing
disaster zone. responders, -Increases the speed risky disaster view of the zones risky
and quality of zones. disaster area to
intelligence to - quickly. responders.
decision-makers. -Provide a better
-Proper coordination incident response
of SAR missions. rate compared to
round knowledge.
-

Feasible -UAVs - UAVs -Battery -limited Limited It is limited

challenges. operations are operations are model is to internationally. internationally. internally.
accepted accepted be improved. Capacities. Limited
nationally but nationally but Capacities.
 46

internationally internationally They are still

restricted. restricted. building
-limited -limited capacities.
Capacities Capacities
Potential National National International Applicable in Applicable in The disaster National or
applications. disaster disasters. and national national relief National within the domestic
disasters. missions disasters national territory. disasters
Would your Accepted in Active and Institute is Actively updating The Keep Operational
organisation improving eager to interested in and improving C2 organisation is improvement of structures
improve C2 organisation improve UAV meeting with for SAR. eager to meet up Technological and improvement
structures and operational C2 structures. UAV with UAV operational meeting up
for SAR structures innovations evolutions structures. with trends
drones? in SAR.
 47

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0.0. DISCUSSION
This chapter examines the study's findings related to the reviewed literature. The purpose is to situate the
results of the study’s relevance within the literature on command-and-control structures of search and rescue
operations with drones or UAVs.

5.1.1. Command and control structures for SAR operations with UAVs
The observed thematic analysis from the various respondents interviewed based on the command-and-
control structures of search and rescue drones shows a beneficial influence on search and rescue with UAVs
with command-and-control structures. The position of operational and organisational structures, mission
planning, and coordinated systems or on-sited operations and coordination centres has been observed as
relevant structures for proper coordination of Search and rescue with UAVs. This observation is in line with
(Govindaraj, Letier et al. 2017), who said the C2 system's mission planning and coordination requirements
illustrate the need for tools to assist SAR mission planners in organizing and deploying Search and rescue
UAV teams in disaster zones.

The observed influence on mission planning in search and rescue with UAVs is also in line with
YILDIZBASI and Lütfü (2020), who said that the C2 intelligent system for UAVs must also have
components that allow SAR mission planners to build mission plans to monitor missions, and make
decisions.

The study findings also observe the importance of coordination structures or on-site operation and
coordination centres (OSOCC) for UAVs' effective search and rescue operations. This finding reflects
Hábermayer and Horváth (2020), who said the OSOCC oversees and directs SAR efforts in a specific
disaster area. Sub-OSOCCs are formed at designated disaster sectors if the disaster area is extensive.

5.1.2. Facilities relevant for search and rescue missions.

The findings obtained from the study through thematic analysis from respondents interviewed show the
relevant Facilities that support effective search and rescue operations with the use of UAVs. The use of
command centres or base stations, communication assets, drone models for SAR, transport facilities, an
understanding of the U-space, mobile phones, and training Institutions for capacity building were observed
as very relevant infrastructures or facilities for search and rescue operations with UAVs. The study results
are in reflection with Balta, Bedkowski et al. (2017), who says ground control stations should consist of a
GPS receiver which provides a global position for network management, a computer system which hosts
the software for the unmanned vehicle, and a modular battery slabs with an onboard power control units.
The finding also reflects Si-Mohammed, Bouaziz et al. (2020), who said, Communication technology is the
 48

key enabler to unlocking the potential of UAV operations. The 5G mobile network is envisioned as the
communication standard for various UAV operations and applications. Si-Mohammed, Bouaziz et al. (2020)
further says U-space services can assist in processing UAVs' flight authorizations and offer operators the
tools and information needed to plan safe flights and avoid collisions with other aircraft, and comply with
each member state's environmental, security, and privacy standards. The findings also accept the importance
of Training Institutions as a relevant structure for search and rescue operations with UAVs. The result
supports De Cubber, Doroftei et al. (2013) and Balta, Bedkowski et al. (2017), who say a practical UAV
operation needs extensive training and support infrastructure.

5.1.3. Stakeholders for UAVs in search and rescue missions.

An understanding of the position of stakeholders' influence on effective search and rescue operations with
UAVs was observed through thematic analysis of the interview data from respondents, with a majority
accepting the importance of stakeholders such as NGOs, state institutes and UAV pilots. The relevance of
international standards guides provided by the international search and rescue advisory group (INSARAG)
was confirmed relevant by all interviewed respondents. The findings are in inline with Okita, Shaw et al.
(2021) and Amaratunga, Haigh et al. (2020), who narrated the international search and rescue advisory
group (INSARAG) guidelines under the auspices of the United Nations that have been among the prime
agency to foster the exchange of capacities between national urban search and rescue groups.

The finding also reflects Govindaraj, Letier et al. (2017), who say, the command and control structures of
SAR defined the various actors in SAR and their interactions with other systems. Govindaraj, Letier et al.
(2017) views are in-line with the finding as it observes relevant stakeholders that constitute the C2 systems.
The structure comprises disaster victims, local emergency management authority, crisis data provider,
Search and Rescue responders, Search and Rescue Mission Planner, SAR UAV operator, SAR Field team,
and crisis stakeholders.

5.1.4. Identified challenges of UAVs in SAR operations and mitigations.

The findings from thematic analysis help to establish views on the challenges observed with UAVs in SAR
operations. The study reveals that all respondents observe a series of mechanical, natural, and human
challenges affecting the use of UAVs for search and rescue missions. The study finding also observes that
all the respondents had the knowledge to propose ways to resolve most of the practical challenges to improve
and encourage the use of UAVs in search and rescue missions. These observations reflect Wackwitz and
Boedecker (2015), who said Unmanned Aerial vehicles are exposed to the risk that can lead to operation
failure leading to loss of control, loss of communication, collision with manned or unmanned aircraft or
buildings, electrical lines and poor weather conditions. The finding is also related to Rubio-Hervas, Gupta
 49

et al. (2018), who opined on UAVs risk prevention mechanism by creating a safety risk database that
includes safety hazards and mitigation measures and a risk monitoring mechanism and a safety culture.

The study finding is also in line with the Bow Tie model of risk management observed by Aust and Pons
(2019), who said the application of the Bowtie model is to evaluate the various hazards, top events, threats,
consequences, barriers and escalating factors that should be identified for safe SAR operations and the
mitigating factors to prevent the perceived and observed risks.

5.2.0. Implications of findings to Transportation research.

The present study has helped expose the relevance of command-and-control structures of search and rescue
operations with drones or UAVs. The use of command-and-control structures of UAVs should be a call for
concern to all stakeholders involved in using drones for search and rescue as a model gadget and system
effective in relief operations.

The study's finding has brought into an understanding of how instrumental and sensitive command and
control structures for UAVs or drones are to Transportation science research literature, Transport
policymakers, traffic safety engineers, and significant partners. The study has also revealed the implications
of command control structures to any Institution or Search and rescue organisation considering integrating
UAVs for rescue missions to invest more into the command structures for an effective relief output.

The finding has revealed the position of facilities as appropriate command structures that any prospective
Institute should observe when considering UAVs for emergency services.

5.3.0. Conclusion.
The present study is based on UAV search and rescue experts from reputable relief organisations globally.
The study is supported by literature observing a decisive impact of command-and-control structures on
UAVs' effective SAR. The study has empirically investigated the concept of command and control through
its facilities and stakeholders and an understanding of the various challenges experienced with UAVs in
search and rescue. The results confirmed command and control structures as reliable structures for effective
search and rescue operations using drones.

It is scientifically observed from research studies that there are several challenges faced by search and rescue
organisations using UAVs for relief operations. However, the challenges vary depending on organisational
differences in expertise, resources and geographical location. Although the use of UAVs is still emerging
and surrounded by a series of challenges, more proposals for improvement and resolution of the experienced
difficulties were observed by the various respondents considered for the study.
 50

The study generally reveals and answers the research questions through the identification of facilities and
stakeholders with relevance that command-and-control structures for UAVs in SAR provide effective
coordination of relief management, increase the speed and quality of intelligence to decision-makers, and
less time spent mapping and assessing a disaster zone, among many advantages. The study reveals the risks
of poor weather, inadequate capacities of Uav operators, the need for improved battery models, legislative
barriers restricting global acceptance and challenges to meeting up with the rapid UAVs technology as the
disturbing hurdles affecting the effective use of UAVs in SAR missions. The use of improved and resilient
UAV models, Subsidized Training costs from training Institutes, and observation of new legislative rules
with proper guidelines for UAVs to be used for international SAR missions were proposed as solutions

5.4.0. Recommendations.
The present study will be relevant to academia, Security agents, government, and Research Institutions. The
present study will help search and rescue organisations consider using UAVs for relief missions to
understand the effective establishment of their respective command and control structures. Facilities such
as the Satellite network, resilient UAV models(DJ), fixed and mobile base stations, an understanding of the
U-space, Trainings Institutes, SAR mobile vehicles and communication gadgets(mobile phones, computers
etc.) have been observed to be relevant to search and rescue organisations considering UAVs integration.

The study will help research institutes feel research gaps in the use of UAVs for search and rescue missions.
The study will further help UAV manufacturers to understand the appropriate UAV architecture helpful for
search and rescue missions. UAV pilot training Institutes will also find the present study relevant for
modification of training to meet field demands for search and rescue operations. The present study will call
on international NGOs, such as International Search and Advisory Group (INSARAG), amongst influential
organisations to observe further the need to consider the UAV guidelines for search and rescue missions.

5.5.0. Suggestions to further research.

The present study considered the command-and-control structures of search and rescue drones. The
researcher recommends and suggests further findings on the following:

▪ Infrastructural impact on UAV search and rescue missions.

▪ Unmanned Aerial vehicles mission planning with search and rescue applications.
▪ Stakeholders’ influence on UAV search and rescue missions.

5.6.0. Limitations of the study.

The present study, though observed to feel research gaps but was also challenged in some respects;
considering the small sample size of respondents that was limited in some few countries without having a
full operational experience of other countries, challenges the strength of generalization of the study. Bowtie
 51

model, a qualitative model for risk assessment, was merely to present the potential threats that can lead to a
hazard and preventive barriers to prevent any threat or escalations that can cause a hazard during search and
rescue mission with UAV. In case of a risk, the model help define how consequences can be controlled or
reduced. However, other operational research with much data could prove if this model is quantifiable or
not.
 52

Reference.

Afina, Y., et al. (2020). "Ensuring Cyber Resilience in NATO’s Command, Control and Communication
Systems." Research Paper. Chatham House.
Albanese, A., et al. (2020). "SARDO: An Automated Search-and-Rescue Drone-based Solution for Victims
Localization." arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.05819.

Amaratunga, D., et al. (2020). Multi-Hazard Early Warning and Disaster Risks. International Symposium
on Multi-Hazard Early Warning and Disaster Risk Reduction, Springer International Publishing.

Auclair, S., et al. (2021). "Needs and opportunities for seismic early warning prior to aftershocks for
search and rescue teams: An in-depth analysis of practitioners’ perceptions." International
Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 65: 102545.
Aust, J. and D. Pons (2019). "Bowtie Methodology for Risk Analysis of Visual Borescope Inspection during
Aircraft Engine Maintenance." Aerospace 6(10): 110.
Balcerzak, A. T., et al. (2021). The Polish perspective of using unmanned aerial vehicle systems in
international firefighting and crisis management missions-legal and technological analysis. 2021
International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), IEEE.

Balta, H., et al. (2017). "Integrated data management for a fleet of search‐and‐rescue robots." Journal of
Field Robotics 34(3): 539-582.

Balta, H., et al. (2015). UAS deployment and data processing during the Balkans flooding with the
support to Mine Action. 8th IARP International Workshop on Robotics for Risky Environments;
January; Lisbon. Portugal: IARP, Citeseer.
Burke, C., et al. (2019). "Requirements and limitations of thermal drones for effective search and rescue
in marine and coastal areas." Drones 3(4): 78.
Cameron, S., et al. (2010). "SUAAVE: Combining aerial robots and wireless networking."

CHAVAN, S. (2021). "USABILITY OF DRONE TECHNOLOGY DURING EMERGENCIES."

Creswell, J. W. and J. D. Creswell (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches, Sage publications.
Creswell, J. W. and C. N. Poth (2018). "Qualitative inquiry and research design (international student
edition): Choosing among five approaches." Language 25(459p): 23cm.
De Cubber, G., et al. (2013). The EU-ICARUS project: developing assistive robotic tools for search and
rescue operations. 2013 IEEE international symposium on safety, security, and rescue robotics
(SSRR), IEEE.
 53

Erdelj, M., et al. (2017). "Wireless sensor networks and multi-UAV systems for natural disaster
management." Computer Networks 124: 72-86.
Erdelj, M., et al. (2017). "Help from the sky: Leveraging UAVs for disaster management." IEEE Pervasive
Computing 16(1): 24-32.
Eyerman, J., et al. (2018). "Drone Efficacy Study (DES): Evaluating the Impact of Drones for Locating Lost
Persons in Search and Rescue Events Brussels." Belgium: DJI and.
Goodrick, D. (2020). Comparative case studies, SAGE Publications Limited.
Gotovac, S., et al. (2020). "Visual-Based Person Detection for Search-and-Rescue with UAS: Humans vs.
Machine Learning Algorithm." Remote Sensing 12(20): 3295.
Govindaraj, S., et al. (2013). The icarus project-command, control and intelligence (c2i). 2013 IEEE
International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR), IEEE.
Govindaraj, S., et al. (2017). "Command and control systems for search and rescue robots." Search and
Rescue Robotics–From Theory to Practice 10.
Govindaraj, S., et al. (2017). "Command and control systems for search and rescue robots." Search and
Rescue Robotics‐From Theory to Practice.
Hábermayer, T. and P. Horváth (2020). "Voluntary Rescue Service in Hungary: The HUSZÁR Team."
Academic and Applied Research in Military and Public Management Science 19(1): 45-54.
Heumüller, E., et al. (2012). Towards a conceptual model of staffs in disaster response organizations.
Bled eConference.
Htet, Z. B. and Z. Htet (2016). "Disaster drones: great potential, few challenges." RSIS Commentaries.
Singapore: Nanyang Technological University.
Islam, M. A. and F. M. F. Aldaihani (2022). "Justification for Adopting Qualitative Research Method,
Research Approaches, Sampling Strategy, Sample Size, Interview Method, Saturation, and Data
Analysis." Journal of International Business and Management 5(1): 01-11.
Joseph, B., et al. (2009). "Cognitive Task Analysis: A Crucial Step to Improve the Usability of a Ground
Control Station for Unmanned Air System Mission."
Kalloniatis, A. C. (2018). "23rd International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium
“Multi-Domain C2” November 6-9 2018, Pensacola Florida, USA."
Khalid, N. I. M., et al. (2016). Ensuring communication for command and control in Search and Rescue
(SAR) operations using smart phones for audio, video and monitoring functions. 2016
International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICICTM), IEEE.
Konert, A., et al. (2019). "The use of drones in emergency medicine: practical and legal aspects."
Emergency medicine international 2019.
Kosmas, V., et al. (2022). "Saving migrants’ lives at sea: Improving search and rescue operations."
Production and Operations Management.
Leonhard, R. R., et al. (2010). "A concept for command and control." Johns Hopkins APL technical digest
29(2): 157-170.
 54

Lieb, J. and A. Volkert (2020). Unmanned Aircraft Systems Traffic Management: A comparsion on the FAA
UTM and the European CORUS ConOps based on U-space. 2020 AIAA/IEEE 39th Digital Avionics
Systems Conference (DASC), IEEE.
López, D. S., et al. (2017). "Interoperability in a heterogeneous team of search and rescue robots." Search
and Rescue Robotics-From Theory to Practice: 93-125.
Marconi, L., et al. (2013). Ground and aerial robots as an aid to alpine search and rescue: Initial sherpa
outcomes. 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR),
IEEE.
Mayer, S., et al. (2019). Drones for search and rescue. 1st International Workshop on Human-Drone
Interaction.
Nazarova, A. V. and M. Zhai (2020). The Application of Multi-agent Robotic Systems for Earthquake
Rescue. Robotics: Industry 4.0 Issues & New Intelligent Control Paradigms. A. G. Kravets. Cham,
Springer International Publishing: 133-146.
Earthquake is one of the most serious catastrophes that cause a fatal threat to people and
animals among all of the disasters. In order to rescue the victims as soon as possible, this paper

Okita, Y. and R. Shaw (2019). "Effects of the classification system in international SAR: the case of the
2015 Nepal earthquake." Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal.

Okita, Y. and R. Shaw (2020). "Search and rescue team classification: BASARNAS of Indonesia." Australian
Journal of Emergency Management 35(2): 73-79.

Okita, Y., et al. (2021). "Regulating incoming international search and rescue teams in the response
phase." Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 29(1): 108-114.
Okita, Y., et al. (2018). "Capacity building of international search and rescue teams through the
classification system: Example from Japan Disaster Relief team and INSARAG External
Classification and Reclassification." Journal of Japan Association for Earthquake Engineering
18(6): 6_23-26_40.
Pensieri, M. G., et al. (2020). "Drones as an Integral Part of Remote Sensing Technologies to Help Missing
People." Drones 4(2): 15.
Queralta, J. P., et al. (2020). "Autosos: Towards multi-uav systems supporting maritime search and
rescue with lightweight ai and edge computing." arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.03409.
Rubio-Hervas, J., et al. (2018). "Data-driven risk assessment and multicriteria optimization of UAV
operations." Aerospace Science and Technology 77: 510-523.
Serrano, D., et al. (2015). ICARUS and DARIUS approaches towards interoperability. IARP RISE Workshop,
At Lisbon, Portugal. Proceedings of the NATO STO Lecture Series SCI-271, Citeseer.
Si-Mohammed, S., et al. (2020). "Supporting Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Services in 5G Networks: New
High-Level Architecture Integrating 5G With U-Space." IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine
16(1): 57-65.
 55

Surmann, H., et al. (2019). Integration of uavs in urban search and rescue missions. 2019 IEEE
International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR), IEEE.
Thurmond, V. A. (2001). "The point of triangulation." Journal of nursing scholarship 33(3): 253-258.
Tillekaratne, H., et al. (2021). Command and Control Mechanism for Effective Disaster Incident Response
Operations in Sri Lanka. Multi-Hazard Early Warning and Disaster Risks, Springer: 615-631.
Wackwitz, K. and H. Boedecker (2015). "Safety risk assessment for uav operation." Drone Industry
Insights, Safe Airspace Integration Project, Part One, Hamburg, Germany.
Waharte, S. and N. Trigoni (2010). Supporting search and rescue operations with UAVs. 2010
International Conference on Emerging Security Technologies, IEEE.
Washington, A. N. (2018). "A survey of drone use for socially relevant problems: Lessons from Africa."
African Journal of Computing & ICT 11(3): 1-11.
Washington, A. N. (2018). "A Survey of Drone Use for Socially Relevant Problems: Lessons from Africa."
African Journal of Computing & ICT 1.
Yanmaz, E., et al. (2017). Communication and coordination for drone networks. Ad Hoc Networks,
Springer: 79-91.
YILDIZBASI, A. and G. Lütfü (2020). "A decision support model for unmanned aerial vehicles assisted
disaster response using AHP-TOPSIS method." Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi(20): 56-66.
Transcription (https://get.otter.ai/interview-transcription/)
 56

APPENDIX

AUTHORIZATION FOR RESEARCH.

 57

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Dear respondent,

I am Elvis Tiko, a postgraduate Student of Transportation Sciences in Traffic Safety Engineering at the
University of Hasselt in Belgium. I am carrying out the research study on Command-and-control structures
of Search and Rescue with Unmanned Aerial Vehicles(UAVs), with a specific interest in understanding
the relevant facilities and the Stakeholders that define the command-and-control structures and the impact
on Search and rescue (SAR) missions. More also, understanding the challenges faced during the SAR
process using UAVs and their proposed mitigations.

Your Institution has been observed to be rich and innovative, with professional Knowledge and experience
in relief operations in emergencies (USAR Directory (unocha.org)). I will be grateful for an interview at your
convenience that will not last more than 20 minutes. I have a few questions I will appreciate being answered
during this time. There are no wrong views from your responses. This study aims not to evaluate your
experiences with UAVs in search and rescue (SAR) operations. The objective is to learn more about the
significant impact of UAVs in SAR operations and hopefully learn about best practices that have improved
SAR missions through the use of technological innovations like UAVs/drones.

Your honest views and opinions on the issues raised will be treated with confidentiality and used strictly for
research purposes within Hasselt University. Your consent and your significant contributions will be
scientifically acknowledged. I look forward to your hearing and availability.

I can be contacted through the email elvis.tiko@student.uhasselt.be or telvimon@gmail.com , and my

phone number is +32465315914. For further information, I will refer to the School of Transportation
Sciences Hasselt University website: www.uhasselt.be/mts .

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Elvis Tiko

(Student researcher).
 58

INTERVIEW RESEARCH QUESTIONS.

SECTION A: INFORMATION ABOUT THE INTERVIEWEE.

Interviewee: ……………………………
Date: ……………………………………
Time: ………………………………………
Organisation/Institution……………….

Years of operations……………………….

Country…………………………………...

SECTION B: MAIN INTERVIEW QUESTIONS.

Command and Control Structures.

1. Several services are involved at the initiation stage of SAR operations with UAVs that guide the responders
to respond quickly to affected victims in an emergency. What are some practical activities or services and
their relevance during the SAR mission?
Probe: Does your operational setup have an organised, coordinated framework during the planning stage of
the rescue mission?
2. When the deployment of SAR responders is done in a disaster zone, SAR responders consider establishing
an On-site operation and coordination centre (OSOCC), which is either centralised or distributed. Is this setup
observed in your SAR process and a relevant reason for considering a distributed or centralised OSOCC?

Facilities.

1. What observed technological resources are appropriate when conducting a SAR operation with UAVs with
practical improvement in relief operations in an emergency?

Probe: Do your operations consider communication assets, U-space, Base/ground stations, drone
types and Institutions for capacity building reliable tools?

Stakeholders.

1. Who are the immediate actors that should be involved in registering a successful rescue of victims with the
assistance of UAVs in a disaster environment?

Probe: Do you consider the local community, international NGO, the local government of the disaster
environment and UAV operators as significant stakeholders in providing a successful rescue
operation?
 59

2. What specific effective international standards practices do you employ during SAR missions and their
significant influence on your relief operations?
Probe: Do you have an idea of any international standard rules designed to assist SAR operations in significant
humanitarian relief situations?

Challenges and mitigations.

1. What are the observed significant challenges experienced when conducting a SAR operation with the help of
UAVs, and how can these challenges be mitigated?
Probe: Do you have an idea of the mechanical, natural and human capacity challenges limiting the SAR operation
using UAVs and proposed solutions?

Thank you for your participation.

 60

SIGNED CONSENT FORMS

CONSENT FOR BELGIAN CIVIL PROTECTION ORGANIZATION.

 61

CONSENT FOR FRANCE GENERAL DIRECTORATE FOR CIVIL SECURITY AND CRISIS
MANAGEMENT.
 62

CONSENT FOR GERMAN FEDERAL AGENCY FOR TECHNICAL RELIEF.

 63

CONSENT FOR LONDON FIRE BRIGADE.

 64

CONSENT FOR FIRE AND EMERGENCY NEW ZEALAND.

 65

CONSENT FOR URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE SOUTH AFRICA.

 66

CONSENT FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE IN THE USA

 67

ATTESTATIONS OF RESEARCH INTERVIEW.

68
69
70
71