Trigger
Define link, navigation, weather, energy, traffic and payload thresholds.
Deployment evaluation · 16
Lost-link and contingency
Demonstrate safe hold, return, landing, surfacing, diversion or shutdown and the authority to trigger each action.
Evidence statusCross-domain mission framework · vehicle, operation and jurisdiction validation requiredLast reviewed: 15 August 2026
16
FUURAA thesis
A contingency is credible only when it is reachable, observable and recoverable under the failure that requires it.
Engineering map
Turn the title into engineering objects that can be observed, measured and reviewed.
Each layer states the boundary to establish and the evidence needed for the next decision.
Action
Select a state that remains safe for the current domain and traffic.
Closure
Notify responsible people, recover the vehicle, reconcile data and investigate.
Verification questions
Write the questions first, then decide whether a demo, test, pilot or operating record can answer them.
Each question needs an object, conditions, denominator, threshold and accountable decision owner.
- 01
Can the fallback itself create danger?
- 02
Is the alternate reachable with reserve?
- 03
How is a silent failure detected?
- 04
Who authorises mission resumption?
Evidence to preserve
Enable the next reader to reconstruct conditions, results, failures and the decision.
A conclusion alone loses reviewability; raw records, configuration and exclusions matter too.
- 01
Evidence package 1
Failure-trigger and response matrix
- 02
Evidence package 2
Injected-failure demonstration record
- 03
Evidence package 3
Recovery, notification and closure log
Scope boundary
State what this evidence still cannot be generalised to.
- 01
A configured return-to-home or surface command does not prove it works under navigation, energy or communications degradation.
- 02
This is an engineering reading and decision framework; it does not replace application-specific risk assessment, conformity work, procurement acceptance or professional advice.
Sources and evidence status
Read standards scope, measurement evidence and application conclusions separately.
Source dates and review status remain visible; external sources open in a new tab.
01
ISO · Published 2026-08-07 · Edition 3
↗02ISO 21384-3:2026 — Uncrewed aircraft operational procedures
Specifies requirements for safe commercial UAS operations, including external safety-critical command-and-control services.
IMO · Adopted 2026-05 · effective 2026-07-01
↗03International Code of Safety for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships
Establishes a goal-based framework for MASS design, operation and certification, including modes, operational limits, remote centres, cybersecurity and human oversight.
International Hydrographic Review / IHO · Published 2020-11-30 · updated 2021-09-21
↗04Hydrographic survey with autonomous surface vehicles
Separates remote piloting from several autonomy levels and links supervision to traffic, hazards, weather, sensors, communications and recovery.
NOAA Ocean Exploration · Updated 2022-04-25 · verified 2026-08-15
↗Autonomous Underwater Vehicles
Describes untethered AUVs executing planned missions, storing payload data, surfacing for communications and requiring later recovery and processing.