Engineering topics

Kevin Monk

Publications and source records attributed to Kevin Monk.

5 records

NASA NTRS2024

Integration of Automated Systems Test Campaign NC-IAS

NASA’s 2022 strategic plan included the goal to catalyze economic growth and drive innovation in the aviation industry, and to address challenges in air transportation and airspace management within the National Airspace System (NAS). The Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) specifically was tasked with leading aviation innovation to enable safe and sustainable air transportation through revolutionary vehicle advances and efficient flight operations. As a part of meeting these objectives and advancing air mobility concepts, NASA initiated the National Campaign (NC) in the Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) Project within the Airspace Operations and Safety Program (AOSP). The NC was designed to support operational demonstrations with industry as well as the research and development needed to support NASA-led research flight demonstrations. Within NC, the Integration of Automated Systems (IAS), an NC activity, tested and evaluated flight deck automation and airspace operations management functions needed to enable Urban Air Mobility (UAM) operations. This was accomplished through a partnership with Sikorsky Aircraft (specifically Sikorsky Innovations), a Lockheed Martin company, and DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), by leveraging two automation-enabled helicopters equipped with unique capabilities that enabled NASA to develop and test two-ship conflict encounters to demonstrate flight path management and hazard avoidance technologies. The enabler in this testing was NASA-developed “Middleware” (MW) software (also known as Expandable Variable Autonomy Architecture, or EVAA), which among other things allowed multiple algorithms to be incorporated into one software build that was hosted on the dissimilar-type Sikorsky helicopters. The IAS test campaign period of performance was from March 2022 through October 2023 and was structured as a phased, or spiral, approach that ultimately led to the first-ever demonstration of two-ship UAM/AAM operations designed to safely choreograph specific conflict encounters and mission scenarios to test the research algorithms for strategic and tactical aircraft deconfliction. Lessons learned are included in the body of the report. Data collected will be used to inform FAA and industry standards groups on the increasingly automated systems needed for future AAM operations. The test encounters developed for these flight tests were proven to be highly predictable, repeatable, and safely exercised flight path planning and Detect and Avoid (DAA) algorithms. These same test encounters should be leveraged by future flight test campaigns to verify that operational safety is not compromised as the AAM architecture matures. Next steps include repeating similar encounters using unmanned aircraft carrying DAA sensors in the National Airspace.

AAM↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Display and Automation Considerations for the Airborne Collision Avoidance System Xu

In this presentation we examine several display and automation considerations of a collision avoidance system that is currently under development: the Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) Xu. This study builds on previous work conducted as part of NASA’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration into the National Airspace System (NAS) project. ACAS Xu represents the next-generation successor to the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS II), wherein the Xu variant is intended for UAS applications. Whereas TCAS II exclusively issues RAs in the vertical dimension, a major distinction between ACAS Xu and previous collision avoidance (CA) systems is the introduction of horizontal and “blended” RAs (i.e., RAs with both horizontal and vertical components). This present work was conducted as an engineering analysis involving two parts. In Part 1, a two-by-two, within-subjects study was performed that manipulated how RAs were presented to a pilot situated at a UAS ground control station. Five participants experienced four experimental trials in which text and aural alerting characteristics were manipulated. In Part 2, another five participants experienced four trials in which the levels of automation were manipulated with regard to the CA and return-to-course (RTC) tasks. The results for Part 1 found no effect of display or alerting configuration on pilot performance. However, it was discovered that pilot response time to RAs greatly depended on the RA type. In particular, pilots were quicker to respond to vertical RAs (M = 4.52 seconds) than horizontal (M = 7.42 seconds) and blended (M = 9.68 seconds) RAs in which both dimensions were issued simultaneously. For Part 2 of the study, pilots found both auto-CA and auto-RTC functions equally useful. Most pilots were comfortable with the automation, however responses were mixed. Three of five participants indicated high levels of comfort with the auto-CA function, while two rated their comfort as low. Pilots’ comfort for the auto-RTC functionality was slightly higher: four out of five pilots gave high ratings, while one pilot gave a low rating. Overall, pilots ordinally ranked their preference for automated functions as auto-CA together with auto-RTC (when an aural alert announces a change between CA and RTC states), auto-CA, and auto-CA and RTC (without the aural state-change announcement). Recommendations for improving the display of automation are also discussed.

collision avoidance↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Training the Powered-Lift Evaluation Pilot

This paper focuses on the preparation and training of evaluation pilots during the second of two research studies: Automation Enabled Pilot studies 1 and 2 (AEP-1 and AEP-2). These studies are intended to assess novel aircraft automation concepts for electric powered aircraft equipped with Indirect Flight Control Systems (IFCS) capable of Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL). The AEP-1 study importantly introduced the concept of future evaluation methods used in the AEP-1 study for eVTOL equipped with IFCS that are agnostic and cut cross both airworthiness and operational requirements. The AEP-2 study utilized an updated Lift Plus Cruise aircraft model and examined pilot interaction with novel procedures and interfaces. Specifically, it explored challenges related to transitioning from forward flight to landing with an industry representative Urban Air Mobility (UAM) approach procedure, establishing baselines for future automation studies.

AAM↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Training the Powered-Lift Evaluation Pilot

This presentation focuses on the preparation and training of evaluation pilots during the second of two research studies: Automation Enabled Pilot studies 1 and 2 (AEP-1 and AEP-2). These studies are intended to assess novel aircraft automation concepts for electric powered aircraft equipped with Indirect Flight Control Systems (IFCS) capable of Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL). The AEP-1 study importantly introduced the concept of future evaluation methods used in the AEP-1 study for eVTOL equipped with IFCS that are agnostic and cut cross both airworthiness and operational requirements. The AEP-2 study utilized an updated Lift Plus Cruise aircraft model and examined pilot interaction with novel procedures and interfaces. Specifically, it explored challenges related to transitioning from forward flight to landing with an industry representative Urban Air Mobility (UAM) approach procedure, establishing baselines for future automation studies.

AAM↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Training the Powered-Lift Evaluation Pilot

This poster describes a project to prepare pilots for a study assessing novel aircraft automation concepts for electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) aircraft using NASA’s Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS). By exploring the operational and learning challenges related to transitioning between forward flight and vertical landing, we seek to establish baselines of pilot workload and aircraft handling qualities across varying atmospheric conditions and automation states. The simulated eVTOL design differentiates flight control allocations as a function of airspeed across four speed ranges as the vehicle transitions between fully thrust-borne lift and wing-borne lift. As speed increases, side stick controls command: translational ground speeds, vertical and lateral acceleration, vertical rate, vertical flight path angle, and bank angle. This novel approach to flight control allocation creates a significant learning challenge for pilots. Since initial eVTOL aircraft may have limitations on hover capabilities, automation and flight guidance cues also vary with airspeed to provide efficient landing profiles while still providing cues suitable for cruise flight. The NASA team prepared the study pilots to follow these flight guidance cues along curved Required Navigation Performance (RNP) approaches and along 6o and 12o glide paths to energy-efficient assistive-hover landing and goarounds. The pre-VMS preparation sought to prepare pilots from diverse levels of experience and background. To do this, NASA researchers designed and developed a fixed-based, large field-ofview simulator with terrain, structures, and air traffic. With one day of combined classroom learning and skill development in the fixedbase simulator, pilots were largely able to fly the simulated eVTOL in the VMS with sufficient mastery to provide handling quality assessments using the Cooper-Harper Handling Qualities Rating and workload assessments through the Bedford Workload Scale.

AAM↗