Enabling Technologies for the Navigation and Communication of UAS Operating in the Context of BVLOS

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a comprehensive examination of technologies pivotal for enabling Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations for Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS). It underscores the synergies between the automotive and aviation sectors, emphasizing the use of Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) technologies. A novel risk-based approach is proposed to scrutinize key components, architectures, algorithms, and protocols necessary for reliable and autonomous BVLOS operations. This review critically assesses the paper’s contributions, methodology, and potential impact on the field. There are several points about strengths

 

1. Comprehensive Scope: The paper addresses a broad range of technological aspects, from communication systems to autonomous navigation, essential for BVLOS operations. This holistic view is crucial for understanding the multifaceted challenges in this domain.

2. Interdisciplinary Approach: The convergence of automotive and aviation industry technologies is a fresh perspective, offering innovative solutions for UAS BVLOS operations. This interdisciplinary approach can accelerate technology transfer and innovation in this area.

3. Practical Methodology: The use of COTS technologies and the development of a drone reference logical architecture using Arcadia and Capella tools are practical approaches. This methodology bridges the gap between theoretical research and real-world application.

4. Risk-Based Analysis: The paper’s focus on a risk-based approach to evaluate technology is particularly relevant for safety-critical systems like UAS. This approach aligns with industry standards and regulatory requirements, enhancing the paper’s relevance.

5. Diverse Applications: Addressing various applications such as disaster management, environmental monitoring, and delivery services shows the paper's commitment to tackling real-world challenges.

 

However, there are several aspects about the weakness, with which authors could seek to improve:

 

1. Regulatory Considerations: While some mention of regulatory frameworks like U-space is made, a more thorough exploration of the evolving regulatory landscape and its implications on the proposed technologies would be beneficial.

 

2. Cost Analysis: There is limited discussion on the cost implications of integrating these technologies, which is crucial for mass-market adoption. A deeper dive into economic feasibility would add value.

 

3. AI Technologies: The paper should be enhanced with a review of enabling AI technologies aiming at improving the UAV deployment and communications, such as [1] – [4]:

 

[1] S. Ouahouah, M. Bagaa, J. Prados-Garzon and T. Taleb, "Deep-Reinforcement-Learning-Based Collision Avoidance in UAV Environment," in IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 4015-4030, 15 March15, 2022, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2021.3118949.

 

[2] X. Zhong, Y. Huo, X. Dong and Z. Liang, "Deep Q-Network Based Dynamic Movement Strategy in a UAV-Assisted Network," 2020 IEEE 92nd Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2020-Fall), Victoria, BC, Canada, 2020, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/VTC2020-Fall49728.2020.9348616.

 

[3] U. Challita, W. Saad and C. Bettstetter, "Interference Management for Cellular-Connected UAVs: A Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach," in IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 2125-2140, April 2019, doi: 10.1109/TWC.2019.2900035.

 

[4] Q. Liu, L. Shi, L. Sun, J. Li, M. Ding and F. Shu, "Path Planning for UAV-Mounted Mobile Edge Computing With Deep Reinforcement Learning," in IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 5723-5728, May 2020, doi: 10.1109/TVT.2020.2982508.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the paper, a few major aspects towards autonomous BVLOS operation according to the U-space are discussed. The concept of a risk-based approach to BVLOS operations is investigated, aiming to address the challenges and uncertainties associated with these operations while promoting their safe and efficient integration into the airspace.

The paper is more survey-like paper than typical research one, but I think it should be interesting for the community.

I found just few typos and mistakes:
- "autonomous capabilities" instead of "autonomus capabilities" (line 16),
- "fascilitate safety" (line 59),
- "future endeavors " (line 60).

The state of the art is very fresh. From 73 cited papers, we have:
- from year 2020: 10,
- 2021 - 12,
- 2022 - 13,
- 2023 - 14.

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive response and the points you raised. We have addressed the identified typos by implementing the suggested corrections in their respective sections within our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, an overview of the state-of-the-art key technological components, architectures, algorithms and protocols for supporting BVLOS drone flights was presented. The work lacks logical presentation at a certain extent and the structural is somewhat confusing. There are some points that should be addressed.

1. There are also some corresponding comprehensive review literatures for Navigation and Communication of Unmanned Aerial Systems. What is the main difference between this work and the existing papers? Because the reviewing of the existing work seems too simple, and the motivation of this paper is not clear.

2. In the Introduction, please clearly clarify the topic and its significance, and also provide a roadmap for the paper.

3. As for the overview of a current system or architectures technology, please highlight the growth of the UAS industry and its applications. The reviewer believed that this discussion was missed in this work.

4. In Section 4.2, please give the review that types of sensors used in UAS for navigation. In addition, discussing how sensor fusion techniques are employed to enhance navigation accuracy is also favorable.

5. In Section 2 and Section 4, the algorithms for autonomous navigation with respect to path planning, obstacle avoidance, etc.al, were not well discussed. Please give an overview of algorithms for autonomous navigation.

6. As for the Safety and Security, the analysis and discussion of safety measures and collision prevention technology are relatively vague. In addition, the regulatory challenges related to UAS navigation should be also clearly addressed.

7. As for the part of Communication, the communication protocols commonly used in UAS is not clearly presented. Please give a corresponding review on the communication protocols commonly used in UAS.

8. As for the Integration of Navigation and Communication, please address challenges and solutions related to seamless integration for navigation and communication technologies, so as to be a cohesive system.

9. If the case studies and examples of UAS applications in various industries were presented, it will increase the application prospects of the technology presented in this article.

10. At the last part of this paper, the challenges and open issues is not well presented. Please identify current challenges and open issues for navigation and communication technologies in UAS, and discuss the areas that required further research and development.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English writing and technique presentations should be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is no further concern as authors have addressed all previous concerns/questions.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive feedback, we truly appreciate the time and effort you invested in reviewing the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer hopes the author can fully display the relevant modifications in the response letter, instead of spending a lot of time searching through the main text of the paper for reviewers. 

1. As for the response 1, the author clarify that they require the reviewer to find the relevant text in section 2.1 ”Scope and contributions”. However, there is no parts of 2.1” Scope and contributions” in the revised manuscript

2. As for the response 2, the author clarify that they provide a roadmap for the paper. However, the reviewer can’t find that one.

3. In the revised manuscript, there are two similar Section title “Cooperative Detect and Avoid”, which is Section 2.1 and 4.2. which caused great confusion for the reviewers.

4. The challenges and solutions related to seamless integration for navigation and communication should be further demonstrated.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language is required to improve the presentation of this paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer has no further comments at this time.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English writing is easy to follow.