Primary program / UAM KoreaTech
Bird-Hazard Decision Support
and Response Records
A reviewable workflow for what was observed, what was authorized and what happened next.
Existing software assets / integration checks in progressA more complete operational picture.
We are developing a workflow that brings bird observations, operator decisions, response actions and follow-up observations into one reviewable record. Our first focus is controlled ground operations in non-operational areas, not autonomous intervention on active runways.
Existing software assets are undergoing reproducibility and integration checks. Integrated hardware performance and bird-deterrence effectiveness remain unvalidated.
Discuss the first use caseProposed airfield workflow
From observation to a reviewable decision.
Functional concept diagram. Not a live interface, operating procedure or validated system.
Explore the concept
One record. Four distinct questions.
Select a stage to see the proposed information flow. This is a website illustration, not a demonstration of a deployed product.
01 — Record the observation
An illustrative bird observation is assigned to a reviewable record. Location, time, the observation method and uncertainty belong together. This example contains no real bird sighting or sensor feed.
- Source
- Synthetic example
- Area
- Controlled test area
- Confidence
- Not measured
Who we want to work with
Start where the task can be defined.
These are intended customer and evaluation groups, not existing customers or agreed partnerships.
Airfield safety teams
Define observation and response-record needs, access boundaries and the person responsible for operational decisions.
Facility operators
Identify a controlled, non-operational observation area and an interpretable first trial.
Platform & test organizations
Agree the available interfaces, comparison methods, data responsibilities and stop conditions.
Validation question
When does a mobile response add value?
We will compare ground response, a separate drone and human response before deciding where a combined vehicle adds value. The comparison must include task completion, operator workload, operating constraints and interpretable follow-up observations.
What would change our development decision?
If a simpler ground or separate-platform arrangement meets the agreed task more reliably, the integrated vehicle should not be the default. If access or measurement cannot support a meaningful test, we would narrow or pause the trial.
Read the comparison frameworkFrequently asked
Scope before scale.
Is this an automatic bird-deterrence system?
No. The program described here is under development, with human decision authority retained. The public website sends no vehicle or deterrence commands.
Does this replace wildlife-hazard management procedures?
No. Any proposed evaluation must fit the responsible operator’s procedures, permissions and safety constraints. This portfolio does not claim regulatory approval.
Has GMAM been tested at an airport?
This portfolio does not present a verified integrated GMAM field test or bird-effectiveness result. The current scope and unresolved evidence are described on the validation page.
Start a focused conversation
Let’s define the next test.
A 30-minute, non-confidential conversation about the use case, current assets and next development milestone.