Risk Assessment: Process 2A

University of Waterloo
WARG Hyperion UAV

Date:
March 3, 2006
Prepared by: Brent Tweddle

WARG Hyperion UAV

Summary
Overview
This is a risk assessment for the Hyperion unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) which is operated by the
University of Waterloo (UW) through the Waterloo Aerial Robotics Group (WARG). This risk
assessment complies with Transport Canada Civil Aviations Risk Management, Type 2A (Short
Process) (TP 13905)1. The remainder of this document assumes the reader is familiar with the
requirements of this process.
This assessment is associated with the operation as described in the Special Flight Operations Certificate
for the University of Waterloo Hyperion UAV submitted as of March 3, 2006 (hereafter referred to as the
SFOC application).

Hazard Statement
The Hyperion UAV has the potential to cause property damage and personal injury to its operators,
spectators and members of the general public. The damage may be caused by the UAVs impact with the
ground or other objects, its propellers or its high energy batteries.

Recommended Risk Control Option

The final risk control measure includes monitoring RC channels, monitoring weather, using safety
checklists, using incremental testing and development procedures, restricting people from the propellers
plane of rotation, flying as far away from other users of the WRESTRC facility as possible and using an
air horn to notify other WRESTRC facility users of an emergency. Also the spotter should be trained as
an RC pilot as an emergency backup to our primary pilot.

Authorizing Managers
I hereby accept the risk control option recommended by the risk management team.
Date: _________________

Adel S. Sedra, PhD, FRSC, FCAE, PEng

Professor
Dean of Engineering
Phone: (519) 888-4567 x3347
Fax: (519) 746-1457
sedra@uwaterloo.ca

David W. L. Wang, PhD, MASc, BASc

Professor
Faculty Advisor of WARG
Phone: (519) 888-4567 x3968
Fax: (519) 746-3077
dwang@uwaterloo.ca

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/systemsafety/pubs/tp13905/menu.htm

10/26/2015

Risk Assessment: Process 2A

Page 2 of 12

WARG Hyperion UAV

SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................................................................2
OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................................................................................2
HAZARD STATEMENT................................................................................................................................................................2
RECOMMENDED RISK CONTROL OPTION..................................................................................................................................2
AUTHORIZING MANAGERS........................................................................................................................................................2
S1.1 DESCRIBE SITUATION/ACTIVITY..............................................................................................................................4
OUTLINE BASIC SITUATION/ACTIVITY......................................................................................................................................4
ASSOCIATED ISSUES..................................................................................................................................................................4
ASSUMPTIONS...........................................................................................................................................................................4
CONSTRAINTS............................................................................................................................................................................4
S1.2 WHAT IS THE HAZARD?................................................................................................................................................4
S1.3 RISK ASSESSMENT TEAM.............................................................................................................................................4
S1.4, 1.5 & 1.6 STAKEHOLDERS.............................................................................................................................................5
S2.1 WHAT ARE THE COMPONENTS OF THE HAZARDS AND ASSOCIATED RISKS?........................................6
COMPONENTS OF THE HAZARD.................................................................................................................................................6
RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTIVITY...................................................................................................................................6
S2.2 EXPOSURE INTERVAL...................................................................................................................................................6
S2.3, 2.4 & 2.5..............................................................................................................................................................................6
S3.1 WHAT IS THE ACTIVITY THAT EXPOSES THE UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO TO A RISK?........................7
S3.2 POSSIBLE COSTS AND BENEFITS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO......................................................7
S3.3 SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS.......................................................................................................................7
S4.1 RISK CONTROL................................................................................................................................................................8
METHODS..................................................................................................................................................................................8
OPTIONS....................................................................................................................................................................................8
S4.2 CRITERIA/WEIGHTING MATRIX................................................................................................................................8
S4.3 PRELIMINARY CHOICE.................................................................................................................................................9
S4.4 RESIDUAL/TRANSITIONAL RISKS.............................................................................................................................9
S4.5 FINAL RISK CONTROL MEASURE..............................................................................................................................9
S5.1 DEVELOP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.......................................................................................................................10
S6.1, 6.2 & 6.3 WHAT ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE MONITORED, WHEN SHOULD THEY BE MONITORED AND
WHAT METHOD SHOULD BE USED TO MONITOR?....................................................................................................11
S6.4 ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RISK CONTROL MEASURES ON THE ACTIVITIES....................11
S6.5 EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RISK ANALYSIS PROCESS..........................................................11
APPENDIX A: RISK SCENARIOS........................................................................................................................................12

10/26/2015

Risk Assessment: Process 2A

Page 3 of 12

WARG Hyperion UAV

S1.1 Describe Situation/Activity

Outline Basic Situation/Activity
Operating the Waterloo Aerial Robotics Groups (WARG) Hyperion unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) as
described in the attached Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC).

Associated Issues
N/A

Assumptions
The UAV will be operated as specified in the attached SFOC. None of the operators, spectators or
members of the general public will be deliberately creating a hazard.

Constraints
There are no additional constraints outside the SFOC application. The SFOC application describes
constraints to ensure that the UAV is operating within legal requirements and in a safe manner for the
general public.

S1.2 What is the Hazard?

The Hyperion UAV has the potential to cause property damage and personal injury to its operators,
spectators and members of the general public. The damage may be caused by the UAVs impact with the
ground or other objects, its propellers or its high energy batteries.

S1.3 Risk Assessment Team

Skill/Knowledge Needed
Technical expertise with
UAVs
Knowledge of aviation rules
Understanding of
University of Waterloo
operations
Executive Signing
Authority

10/26/2015

Team Member
Brent Tweddle, Matthew
Black
Steve Buchanan
Dr. David Wang

Role/Authority
Operations Managers

Dr. Adel Sedra

Dean of Engineering,
Decision Maker

Pilot
Faculty Advisor, Decision
Maker

Risk Assessment: Process 2A

Page 4 of 12

WARG Hyperion UAV

S1.4, 1.5 & 1.6 Stakeholders

Stakeholder
Internal
WARG Team
Internal
UW Secretariat
Internal
UW Insurance
Internal
UW Dean of
Engineering
Internal
WARG Faculty
Advisor
External
WRESTRC
Manager
External
WRESTRC
Neighbours
External
Public

10/26/2015

Is
Consultation
Necessary?
Yes

Method of
Contact

Who is
responsible?
Brent Tweddle

Yes

Design Review
+ Vote
Informal

Yes

Informal

Brent Tweddle

Yes

Informal

Brent Tweddle

Yes

Informal

Brent Tweddle

Prior to SFOC
submission

Yes

Informal

Brent Tweddle

Prior to SFOC
submission

Yes

Informal

Brent Tweddle

Prior to SFOC
submission

Brent Tweddle

When will the

consultation
occur?
Prior to SFOC
submission
Prior to SFOC
submission
Prior to SFOC
submission
Prior to SFOC
submission

No

Risk Assessment: Process 2A

Page 5 of 12

WARG Hyperion UAV

S2.1 What are the components of the hazards and associated

risks?
Components of the Hazard

Impact force during collision/crash (70 lbs max weight, 40 knots max speed)
High speed propellers (9000 RPM)
High energy motor batteries (Lithium Polymer, 592 Watt Hours)2

Risks Associated with the Activity

People could be seriously injured or killed if the UAV hit them or something near them. Property
could also be destroyed if this occurred.

The propellers could injure someone. This could occur while the UAV is on the ground, or during
a collision/crash.

If the propellers break, they will be projected away from their center of rotation at a high velocity
and could possibly hit a person.

If a problem were to occur with the motor batteries they may catch fire while the UAV is in
flight, on the ground, during a collision/crash or while they are recharging. Due to the type of batteries
and energy density the fire produced would be rapid and possibly explosive.

S2.2 Exposure Interval

The exposure interval will be approximately one year. In this time it is expected that approximately 200
half hour flights will be completed.

S2.3, 2.4 & 2.5

See Appendix A.

Manufacturer Safety Warnings: http://www.thunderpower-batteries.com/images/THPSafetyWarnings.pdf

10/26/2015

Risk Assessment: Process 2A

Page 6 of 12

WARG Hyperion UAV

S3.1 What is the activity that exposes the University of Waterloo

to a risk?
Flying the Hyperion UAV will expose the University of Waterloo to a risk.

S3.2 Possible Costs and Benefits to the University of Waterloo

All figures in Canadian Dollars (CAD).
Quantitative
Cost of Airplane
Cost of Operation

Cost
$10,000

Benefit
Possibility of
$80,000
Winning Competition
in 2007

$10,000/year
Qualitative

Cost
Time of students, faculty and admin
Space and equipment resources

Benefit
Enhancement of student education
Satisfaction of future alumni
Increased international reputation
Additional media attention
Additional donations to University

S3.3 Summary of Costs and Benefits

The monetary costs far exceed the benefits; however the qualitative and indirect benefits to the
University of Waterloo have the potential to exceed all of the costs. For this reason I recommend that the
University of Waterloo allows the flight of the Hyperion UAV.

10/26/2015

Risk Assessment: Process 2A

Page 7 of 12

WARG Hyperion UAV

S4.1 Risk Control

Methods
A.
B.
C.

Monitor RC Channel interference in between flights

Monitor motor and RC electronics battery voltage and current in flight
Use a number of checklists
a. One for Mechanical & Motor/Battery Assembly
b. One for Pit Stops (UAV lands, then flies at a later time without disassembly)
c. One for Preparations before each day of flight
d. Others as necessary
D.
Incremental flight testing procedure to ensure mechanical reliability and electrical safety
E.
Choose days to fly when there are no other users on WRESTRC facility
F.
When other users are at the WRESTRC facility fly in an area as far away from them as possible
and use an air horn to notify them of an emergency
G.
Monitor weather forecasts daily beginning at least three days before flight tests
H.
People should not stand in the plane of rotation of the propellers during ground operations

Options
1.
2.
3.
4.

A, B, C, D, E, G, H
A, B, C, D, F, G, H
A, C, D, E, G, H
A, C, D, F, G, H

S4.2 Criteria/Weighting Matrix

Number
1
2
3
4
5
6

Criteria
Protect life/health of general public and spectators
Protect life/health of WARG members
Protect public/private property
Protect University of Waterloo property
Promote efficient testing and development of Hyperion UAV
Minimize cost of development

How do options
compare
Number Weight
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total

10/26/2015

10
10
8
7
4
4

Options
2

1
Score

Weighted
Score

10
9
10
9
1
3

100
90
80
63
4
3
340

Why?

Score

Weighted
Score

8
10
8
10
9
3

80
100
64
70
36
12
362

Weight (1-10)
10
10
8
7
4
4
3

Why?

Risk Assessment: Process 2A

Score

Weighted
Score

9
9
9
8
2
9

90
90
72
56
8
36
352

Why?

Page 8 of 12

WARG Hyperion UAV

How do options
compare
Number Weight
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total

10
10
8
7
4
4

Options
4
Score

Weighted
Score

7
9
7
8
10
10

70
90
65
65
40
40
370

Why?

S4.3 Preliminary Choice

The preliminary choice is option number 4 based on the scoring of S4.2.

S4.4 Residual/Transitional Risks

Residual Risk

Risk Level (P x S x E = R)

Bird Strike

1x3x1=3

Pilot and spotter loose sight

of UAV

1 x 3 x 4 = 12

Pilot medical emergency

1x3x1=3

Nacelle intake blockage

while in flight or during
take off.
Person drives onto runway
that is connected to other
roads on the WRESTRC
facility

1x4x1=4
1x4x1=4

Is this level of risk acceptable?

Can it be managed? How?
It is acceptable. It can not be
managed.
It is acceptable. It can be
managed by training the spotter
as an RC pilot so that the spotter
is experienced in tracking RC
airplanes.
It is acceptable. It can be
managed by training the spotter
as an RC pilot for emergency
backup purposes.
It is acceptable. It can not be
managed.
This can be controlled by
blocking the road to the runway
with traffic cones and posting
In Use signs on road

S4.5 Final Risk Control Measure

The final risk control measure includes monitoring RC channels, monitoring weather, using safety
checklists, using incremental testing and development procedures, restricting people from the propellers
plane of rotation, flying as far away from other users of the WRESTRC facility as possible and using an
air horn to notify other WRESTRC facility users of an emergency. Also the spotter should be trained as
an RC pilot as an emergency backup to our primary pilot.

10/26/2015

Risk Assessment: Process 2A

Page 9 of 12

WARG Hyperion UAV

S5.1 Develop Implementation Plan

Activity

Start Date

Purchase RC Immediately
monitor.
Develop
Checklists

Immediately

Develop test
plan

Immediately

Train spotter
as RC pilot

Immediately

10/26/2015

Due Date
Two weeks
prior to first
flight.
Two weeks
prior to first
flight
Two weeks
prior to first
flight
First flight

Person
Milestone
Accountable or
Deliverable
Operations
Actual
Manager
Device

Method of
Follow Up

Operations
Manager

Checklists

Weekly
meetings

Operations
Manager

Plan

Weekly
meetings

Operations
Manager

10 hours on
flight
simulator

Weekly
meetings

Risk Assessment: Process 2A

N/A

Page 10 of 12

WARG Hyperion UAV

S6.1, 6.2 & 6.3 What activities should be monitored, when should
they be monitored and what method should be used to
monitor?
Activity
Use of RC channels
within range of
WRESTRC
Evaluate training of
spotter
Progress of
incremental testing
plan
Effectiveness of
checklists
Use of airspace
below 700 feet

When
Throughout
operations

By Whom
Manager of
WRESTRC facility

Method
Using commercial
monitor

Before first flight

Pilot

Using simulator

Before first flight

Operations manager

Inspection

Throughout
operations
Throughout
operations

Operations manager
& Pilot
Manager of
WRESTRC facility

Inspection
Visual inspection

S6.4 Assess the effectiveness of the risk control measures on the

activities
This will be done on an ongoing basis throughout the operations.

S6.5 Evaluate the effectiveness of the risk analysis process

This will be done on an ongoing basis throughout the operations.

10/26/2015

Risk Assessment: Process 2A

Page 11 of 12

WARG Hyperion UAV

Appendix A: Risk Scenarios

10/26/2015

Risk Assessment: Process 2A

Page 12 of 12