Engineering topics

Brandt, Summer

Publications and source records attributed to Brandt, Summer.

9 records

NASA NTRS2019

A Comparison of Two Terminal Area Detect and Avoid Well Clear Definitions

Technical requirements are currently under development for a detect and avoid system (DAA) that would support the operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) within the National Airspace System (NAS). Such a system would aid UAS operators in maintaining sufficient separation, or "well clear", from other aircraft in their vicinity. The first set of technical standards for a UAS DAA system (referred to as "Phase 1" requirements) was limited to UAS operations transiting through Class D, E, and G airspace to, or from, Class A (or special-use) airspace. Explicitly out of scope of the Phase 1 requirements was the operation of UAS within terminal airspace in the NAS. Fern, Rorie, Roberts and Monk (2018) explored the application of a Phase 1 DAA system within Class D terminal airspace in a human-in-the-loop simulation. The results of the study demonstrated a poor fit of the Phase 1 DAA well clear (DWC) definition to these terminal operations. The original DWC definition was designed for the en-route environment and could not account for the complex, tightly-choreographed nature of traffic typically found near an airport. The interaction of the en-route DWC definition and the terminal area traffic led to excessive DAA alerting against safely-separated traffic. The frequent alerting quickly degraded pilots' ability to discriminate between encounters where a maneuver was or was not necessary. This resulted in slower response times, higher rates of losses of DAA well clear, and more severe losses of DAA well clear than had been observed in previous DAA research (e.g., Rorie et al., 2017). The current paper reports on a follow-on study to Fern et al. (2018) that tested two DWC definitions designed to accommodate standard terminal area operating procedures, such as traffic in the downwind leg of a VFR traffic pattern while the UAS is on final. The two definitions utilized identical horizontal and vertical thresholds but differed in whether or not Tau (a function that takes into account the closure rate of two aircraft) was included as a part of the DWC hazard zone. The "Tau" DWC candidate definition nominally extended the DWC hazard zone by 15 seconds in the direction of the intruder aircraft, while the "No Tau" DWC candidate definition did not extend the DWC hazard zone. The results of this follow-on study indicated that both candidate definitions improved pilot and DAA system performance relative to Fern et al (2018). Pilot response times and rates of losses of DWC returned to levels comparable to earlier research in the en-route environment. Several important differences between the two DWC candidate definitions, however, are also discussed.

Terminal Area↗

NASA NTRS2018

Multi-UAS HITL: Primary Results & Automation Workshop Summaries

This presentation covers the primary results from a recently completed human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation conducted as part of the UAS (Unmanned Aircraft System) integration into the NAS (National Airspace System) project. The HITL examined the impact of multiple (simultaneous) UAS control while performing a demanding mission task and managing scripted conflicts. The scripted conflicts were designed to trigger the detect-and-avoid (DAA) system. This was the first time the DAA system as designed as part of the UAS-NAS project has been applied to multi-UAS control. The second part of the presentation briefly summarizes the takeaways from two workshops held on human-automation interaction considerations for UAS integration. NASA co-hosted and participated in both workshops.

unmanned aircraft systems↗

NASA NTRS2018

An Exploratory Evaluation of UAS Detect and Avoid Operations in the Terminal Environment

New technical standards for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) detect and avoid (DAA) systems mark recent progress toward realizing the goal of full integration of UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS). The DAA system is intended to provide a means of compliance with operating regulations that required pilots on board manned aircraft to remain "well clear" of other aircraft which is accomplished through out-the-window visual acquisition of other aircraft and application of a subjective judgment of safe separation. The requirements for the DAA system, including the specification of a DAA well clear threshold as well as functional requirements for detecting, tracking, alerting and guidance processing, and displays, are specified in DO-365, Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for DAA Systems developed within RTCA Special Committee 228 (SC-228). Intended as the first in a series of phased versions, these requirements are frequently referred to as the "Phase 1" DAA system. The Phase 1 DAA system is limited for use by aircraft transitioning to and from Class A or special use airspace, through Class D, E, and G airspace. In particular, the Phase 1 DAA MOPS are not intended for terminal airspace operations, a critical gap for enabling a full range of UAS operations. The application of the Phase 1 DAA system and DAA well clear threshold within the terminal area is predicted to result in a high number of unnecessary alerts when the UAS is safely separated from other traffic. The goal of the present study was to examine pilot performance and operational issues related to the operation of the Phase 1 DAA system in a terminal area. This experiment was intended as an exploratory study that would be used to inform the development of a new terminal area-specific DAA well clear definition, and associated alerting and guidance requirements. The two main objectives of this study were to: 1) characterize pilot behavior in the terminal environment with the Phase 1 DAA system, and 2) investigate the effect of modifications to the Phase 1 DAA alerting and guidance structure. In particular, the authors were interested in determining whether the removal of specific alerting and guidance levels, without changing the DAA well clear definition or alerting thresholds, would impact pilot performance while conducting terminal operations. The results indicate that the Phase 1 well clear definition and alerting and guidance resulted in frequent alerting that degraded pilots' ability to discriminate between encounters where another aircraft was safely separated versus when a maneuver was necessary. The resulting impact on pilot performance was slower response times and higher frequency and severity of losses of DAA well clear compared to those observed for experiments examining pilot performance in the en route environment. There was no significant effect of alerting and guidance display configuration on pilot performance.

Rorie, Conrad↗

NASA NTRS2018

Human Automation Teaming: Lessons Learned and Future Directions

Full autonomy seems to be the goal for system developers in almost every area of the economy. However, as we move from automated systems to autonomous systems, designers have needed to insert humans to oversee automation that has traditionally been brittle or incomplete. This creates its own problems as the operator is usually out of the loop when the automation hands over problems that it cannot handle. To better handle these situations, it has been proposed that we develop human automation teams that have shared goals and objectives to support task performance. This paper will describe an initial model of Human Automation Teaming (HAT) which has three elements: transparency, bi-directional communications, and human-directed execution. Transparency in our model is a method for giving insight into the reasoning behind automated recommendations and actions, bi-directional communication allows the operator to communicate directly with the automation, and finally the automation defers execution to the human. The model was implemented through a number of features on an electronic flight bag (EFB) which are described in the paper. The EFB was installed in a mid-fidelity flight simulator and used by 12 airline pilots to support diversion decisions during off-nominal flight scenarios. Pilots reported that working with the HAT automation made diversion decisions easier and reduced their workload. They also reported that the information provided about diversion airports was similar to what they would receive from ground dispatch, thus making coordination with dispatch easier and less time consuming. These HAT features engender more trust in the automation when appropriate, and less when not, allowing improved supervision of automated functions by flight crews.

Human-Autonomy Teaming↗

NASA NTRS2018

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project: Terminal Operations HITL 1B Primary Results

This presentation provides an overview of the primary results from the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project's second Terminal Operations human-in-the-loop simulation. This talk covers the background of this follow-on experiment, which includes an overview of the first Terminal Operations HITL performed by the project. The primary results include a look at the number and durations of detect and avoid (DAA) alerts issued by the two DAA systems under test. It also includes response time metrics and metrics on the ability of the pilot-in-command (PIC) to maintain sufficient separation. Additional interoperability metrics are included to illustrate how pilots interact with the tower controller. Implications and conclusions are covered at the end.

unmanned aircraft systems↗

NASA NTRS2017

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project: Terminal Operations HITL 1: Primary Results

This presentation covers the primary results of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project Terminal Operations Foundational Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) simulation. The study tasked 16 pilots (half with manned piloting experience, and the other half with unmanned piloting experience) with maintaining "well clear" from other traffic while performing three different types of approaches into the Santa Rosa airport. A detect and avoid (DAA) system was provided to pilots to assist their ability to manage separation. The DAA system used in this test conformed to the criteria defined by RTCA Special Committee 228 (SC-228) in their Phase 1 Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for UAS intending to operate in the NAS. The Phase 1 system was not designed to account for terminal operations, focusing instead on en route operations. To account for this, three different alerting and guidance configurations were presently tested in order to determine their effect on pilots operating the system in the terminal area. Results indicated that pilots with the alerting and guidance condition that provided the least amount of assistance (fewer alert levels and guidance types) experienced slightly increased pilot response times and rates of losses of separation. Additional data is presented on the effects of approach type and descriptive data on pilot maneuver preferences and ATC interoperability.

terminal environmen↗

NASA NTRS2017

Developing a General Framework for Human Autonomy Teaming

Automation has entered nearly every aspect of our lives, but it often remains hard to understand. Why is this? Automation is often brittle, requiring constant human oversight to assure it operates as intended. This oversight has become harder as automation has become more complicated. To resolve this problem, Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT) has been proposed. HAT looks to make automation act as more of a teammate, by having it communicate with human operators in a more human, goal-directed, manner which provides transparency into the reasoning behind automated recommendations and actions. This, in turn, permits more trust in the automation when it is appropriate, and less when it is not, allowing a more targeted supervision of automated functions. This paper proposes a framework for HAT, incorporating two key tenets: bi-directional communication, and operator directed authority. We have successfully applied these tenets to integrating the autonomous constrained flight planner (an aide for planning diverts) into a dispatch station. We propose the development of general design patterns that may allow these results to be generalized to domains such as photography and automotive navigation. While these domains are very different, we find application of our HAT tenets provides a number of opportunities for improving interaction between human operators and automation.

human factors↗

NASA NTRS2012

An Evaluation of Controller and Pilot Performance, Workload and Acceptability under a NextGen Concept for Dynamic Weather Adapted Arrival Routing

In todays terminal operations, controller workload increases and throughput decreases when fixed standard terminal arrival routes (STARs) are impacted by storms. To circumvent this operational constraint, Prete, Krozel, Mitchell, Kim and Zou (2008) proposed to use automation to dynamically adapt arrival and departure routing based on weather predictions. The present study examined this proposal in the context of a NextGen trajectory-based operation concept, focusing on the acceptability and its effect on the controllers ability to manage traffic flows. Six controllers and twelve transport pilots participated in a human-in-the-loop simulation of arrival operations into Louisville International Airport with interval management requirements. Three types of routing structures were used: Static STARs (similar to current routing, which require the trajectories of individual aircraft to be modified to avoid the weather), Dynamic routing (automated adaptive routing around weather), and Dynamic Adjusted routing (automated adaptive routing around weather with aircraft entry time adjusted to account for differences in route length). Spacing Responsibility, whether responsibility for interval management resided with the controllers (as today), or resided with the pilot (who used a flight deck based automated spacing algorithm), was also manipulated. Dynamic routing as a whole was rated superior to static routing, especially by pilots, both in terms of workload reduction and flight path safety. A downside of using dynamic routing was that the paths flown in the dynamic conditions tended to be somewhat longer than the paths flown in the static condition.

Johnson, Walter W.↗

NASA NTRS2012

Comparison of Controller and Flight Deck Algorithm Performance During Interval Management with Dynamic Arrival Trees (STARS)

Managing the interval between arrival aircraft is a major part of the en route and TRACON controller s job. In an effort to reduce controller workload and low altitude vectoring, algorithms have been developed to allow pilots to take responsibility for, achieve and maintain proper spacing. Additionally, algorithms have been developed to create dynamic weather-free arrival routes in the presence of convective weather. In a recent study we examined an algorithm to handle dynamic re-routing in the presence of convective weather and two distinct spacing algorithms. The spacing algorithms originated from different core algorithms; both were enhanced with trajectory intent data for the study. These two algorithms were used simultaneously in a human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation where pilots performed weather-impacted arrival operations into Louisville International Airport while also performing interval management (IM) on some trials. The controllers retained responsibility for separation and for managing the en route airspace and some trials managing IM. The goal was a stress test of dynamic arrival algorithms with ground and airborne spacing concepts. The flight deck spacing algorithms or controller managed spacing not only had to be robust to the dynamic nature of aircraft re-routing around weather but also had to be compatible with two alternative algorithms for achieving the spacing goal. Flight deck interval management spacing in this simulation provided a clear reduction in controller workload relative to when controllers were responsible for spacing the aircraft. At the same time, spacing was much less variable with the flight deck automated spacing. Even though the approaches taken by the two spacing algorithms to achieve the interval management goals were slightly different they seem to be simpatico in achieving the interval management goal of 130 sec by the TRACON boundary.

Battiste, Vernol↗