Engineering topics

Monk, Kevin

Publications and source records attributed to Monk, Kevin.

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 NTRS2019

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project: ACAS Xu Engineering Analysis Results

This presentation provides an overview of the results from a two-part engineering analysis conducted as part of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project. Part one of this analysis examined how to present resolution advisories (RAs) issued by Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) Xu, which can be in the vertical dimension, the horizontal dimension, or both (i.e., "blended"). The study varied the appearance of the alerting and the verbiage used in the aural alerts. Results revealed high acceptability ratings for the appearance of the RA guidance. Part two of the analysis assessed pilot acceptability of varying levels of automation in the collision avoidance (CA) task. Pilots experienced conditions in which ACAS Xu RAs were executed either manually or automatically (i.e., auto-Collision Avoidance). In some conditions the return to a previously filed course was also executed automatically (auto-Return to Course). Results indicated that improvements are needed to how the state of the automation is presented. Implications of these findings are also discussed.

Detect and Avoid↗

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

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

Validation of Minimum Display Requirements for a UAS Detect and Avoid System

unmanned aircraft systems↗

NASA NTRS2017

Validation of Minimum Display Requirements for a UAS Detect and Avoid System

The full integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS), a prerequisite for enabling a broad range of public and commercial UAS operations, presents several technical challenges to UAS developers, operators and regulators. A primary barrier is the inability for UAS pilots (situated at a ground control station, or GCS) to comply with Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations sections 91.111 and 91.113, which require pilots to “see and avoid” other aircraft in order to maintain well clear. UAS pilots’ removal from the flight deck of the aircraft necessitates the development of a UAS-specific system for detecting nearby traffic and displaying traffic information to the pilot to support their ability to maintain an objectively defined “DAA well clear” threshold from other aircraft. This new UAS-specific function of remaining DAA well clear is called traffic avoidance. The resulting Detect and Avoid (DAA) system, however, will be subject to a collection of requirements that manufacturers will be obligated to meet in order to certify their equipment. RTCA Special Committee 228 (SC-228), a consortium of representatives from government, industry and academia, is responsible for developing and documenting the Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for UAS DAA systems. The present study is the final in a series of human-in-the-loop (HITL) experiments designed to explore and test the various display and alerting requirements being incorporated into the DAA MOPS. Whereas the prior DAA HITLs examined a wide variety of DAA display features and concepts, the current experiment aims to validate the latest minimum display requirements for Phase 1 of the DAA MOPS. Rather than test different display concepts, this study tests two configurations of a MOPS-compatible DAA display: a version that is integrated into the primary navigation and control display of the GCS and a version that is physically separated from the primary display. This manipulation tests the draft minimum requirement that allows the DAA traffic display to be a separate, or standalone, configuration. This type of configuration is a more achievable near-term technology solution since it does not stipulate additional certification or integration requirements on UAS manufacturers. However, a standalone display configuration has the potential to result in pilot performance issues resulting from the cognitive costs of switching between the primary DAA display and the primary navigation and control display. This configuration is also particularly susceptible to errors if the displays are in different orientations (e.g., north-up versus track-up). Both the integrated and standalone display configurations were presented to 16 active UAS pilots in a medium-fidelity simulation, which included confederate air traffic controllers and pseudo pilots operating simulated manned traffic. Pilots were tasked with navigating two different mission routes while maintaining DAA well clear with scripted conflicts. Pilot response times (i.e., measured response) and ability to remain DAA well clear are reported. Primary results indicate that both display configurations resulted in favorable response times and well clear rates. While there were clear trends of pilots objectively performing better in the integrated display condition, with several measured response metrics reaching statistical significance, the differences between the two displays were typically moderate. While the primary variable of DAA display location did not have an especially large impact on pilot performance on its own, when examined alongside the type of DAA threat the pilot was facing (a caution-level versus a warning-level alert), the response time benefits associated with the integrated display were amplified. The implications of these American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 2 results on the Phase 1 DAA MOPS and the connection of this data to previous studies is also discussed.

detect and avoid↗

NASA NTRS2016

UAS Pilot Evaluations of Suggestive Guidance on Detect-and-Avoid Displays

Minimum display requirements for Detect-and-Avoid (DAA) systems are being developed in order to support the expansion of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS). The present study examines UAS pilots' subjective assessments of four DAA display configurations with varying forms of maneuver guidance. For each configuration, pilots rated the intuitiveness of the display and how well it supported their ability to perform the DAA task. Responses revealed a clear preference for the DAA displays that presented suggestive maneuver guidance in the form of "banding" compared to an Information Only display, which lacked any maneuver guidance. Implications on DAA display requirements, as well as the relation between the subjective evaluations and the objective performance data from previous studies are discussed.

unmanned aircraft systems↗