To reduce the safety risk posed by small Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) to persons on the ground, one of the mitigating measures is to equip the UAS with an airbag in combination with a parachute, both of which are deployed in case of an uncontrolled descent. In literature, methods for the evaluation of the effect of a parachute alone have been developed. This paper develops a method to assess the safety risk for persons on the ground posed by a UAS that is both equipped with an airbag and a parachute. For the descent phase of the UAS to the ground, existing models are used. The novel part is the dynamical simulation of the effect on a human body of impact and interaction of a UAS with airbag. For the human impact simulation, use is made of Multi Body System (MBS) model for the UAS and the human; in combination with Finite Element (FE) model of the airbag. This method is applied for a specific parcel delivery UAS, of 15 kg weigh, for cases with and without airbag. The results obtained show that the combination of parachute and airbag can reduce the safety risk posed to people on the ground by more than one order in magnitude. Comparison with existing models for parachute alone, show that the novel method is much better in taking UAS design and material properties into account. The paper also shows that the dynamical simulation results obtained provide effective feedback to the further improvement of the airbag design.

Advantages of commercial UAS-based services come with the disadvantage of posing third party risk (TPR) to overflown population on the ground. Especially challenging is that the imposed level of ground TPR tends to increase linearly with the density of potential customers of UAS services. This challenge asks for the development of complementary directions in reducing ground TPR. The first direction is to reduce the rate of a UAS crash to the ground. The second direction is to reduce overflying in more densely populated areas by developing risk-aware UAS path planning strategies. The third direction is to develop UAS designs that reduce the product (Formula presented.) in case of a crashing UAS, where (Formula presented.) is the size of the crash impact area on the ground, and (Formula presented.) is the probability of fatality for a person in the crash impact area. Because small UAS accident and incident data are scarce, each of these three developments is in need of predictive models regarding their contribution to ground TPR. Such models have been well developed for UAS crash event rate and risk-aware UAS path planning. The objective of this article is to develop an improved model and assessment method for the product (Formula presented.) In literature, the model development and assessment of the latter two terms is accomplished along separate routes. The objective of this article is to develop an integrated approach. The first step is the development of an integrated model for the product (Formula presented.). The second step is to show that this integrated model can be assessed by conducting dynamical simulations of Finite Element (FE) or Multi-Body System (MBS) models of collision between a UAS and a human body. Application of this novel method is illustrated and compared to existing methods for a DJI Phantom III UAS crashing to the ground.

Evaluating safety risk posed to third parties on the ground due to UAS impact requires a model of probability of fatality (PoF) for human. For quadrotor UAS, the existing impact models predict remarkably different PoFs. The most pessimistic is the impact model adopted by Range Commanders Council (RCC) while the Blunt Criterion model is far more optimistic. The ASSURE study has assessed the third set of PoF values through conducting controlled drop tests of a DJI Phantom III on a crash dummy; these results differ again. To investigate these discrepancies, this paper employs a numerical impact analysis of UAS collisions on humans. The current paper is the third in a series of studies. The first study developed a MultiBody System (MBS) simulation model of a DJI Phantom III impacting the head of a crash dummy; this MBS model has been validated against the experimental drop test results of ASSURE. The second study conducted simulations with the validated MBS model to systematically show the differences in head and neck injuries if the human dummy is replaced by a validated MBS model of a human body. The aim of the current paper is threefold: i) to extend the latter MBS model to assess injury levels for DJI Phantom III impact on thorax and abdomen; ii) to transform the assessed injury levels for head, thorax and abdomen to PoFs; and iii) to compare the MBS obtained PoFs to those from RCC and Blunt Criteria models. The MBS based results show that variations in the scenario of DJI Phantom III impact on the head significantly affect PoF. These variations are not captured by the RCC or BC model, and neither in the ASSURE measurements. Both for head, thorax and abdomen, in case of comparable impact scenarios, the RCC model tends to over-predicts PoF compared to the MBS model, while the BC model tends to under-predict PoF.

Recent developments in the concept of UAS operations in urban areas have led to risk concerns of UAS collision with human. To better understand this risk, head and neck injuries due to UAS collisions have been investigated by different research teams using crash dummies. Because of the limitations in biofidelity of a crash dummy, head injury level for a crash dummy impact may differ from the human body impact. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to investigate differences in head and neck injuries subject to UAS collision between an often-used Hybrid III crash dummy and a human body. To perform such investigation, multibody system (MBS) impact models have been used to simulate UAS impacts on validated models of the Hybrid III crash dummy and the human body at various impact conditions. The findings show that the Hybrid III predicts similar head and neck injury compared to the human body when UAS collides horizontally from front and rear. However, the Hybrid III over-predicts head injury due to horizontal side impact. Moreover, under vertical drop and 45 degree elevated impact of UAS, the Hybrid III under-predicts head injury, and over-predicts neck injury.

UAS will be integrated into the airspace in the near future, but the risk of UAS collision is not well understood which hampers the development of adequate regulations and standards. As risk has two constituents: frequency and consequence, collision risk analysis of UAS operations in future UTM asks for a quantitative assessment of various types of frequency and consequence. However, prior to studying such quantitative assessment, it is a prerequisite to identify the various types of collisions and consequences. Doing the latter is the objective of this paper. This paper follows a step-wise approach in identifying the various types of collision consequence under a given UTM ConOps, focusing on the very-low-level UAS operations. The first steps address the analysis of the UTM ConOps, rules, and infrastructure considered, and the identification of types of objects and UASs that will operate in the very-low-level UTM system. The follow-up steps are to characterize impact materials by applying zone of impact analysis, followed by analyzing the types of collision consequence. The result is a systematic identification and characterization of types of collision consequences as well as applicable impact materials and conditions that will form the basis for safety risk analysis in follow-on research.