NASA NTRS · 20170000824
No abstract available
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Jung, Jaewoo, D'souza, Sarah N., Ishihara, Abraham K., Do, Minh Binh, Modi, Hemil. 2016-07-19. UTM Constraint Checking with Vehicle Trajectory. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20170000824
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
This report is a follow on from HF Designworks’ 2018 report on state of the present and state of the art sensor technologies as they related to Ground Based Detect and Avoid (GBDAA) systems for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). In this update, HF Designworks again looks to UAS test sites, manufacturers, vendors, and users to identify the latest sensor technologies covering not just GBDAA, but additional UAS sensor types; including airborne. For this latest report, the following sensor types were reviewed, as well as a few that don’t quite fit within the following categories: Electro-Optical / Infrared (EO/IR), LiDAR, RADAR, Radiofrequency (RF) scanner, Acoustic, and Other. From our interviews and research with various organizations and individuals, we found both interesting new technologies as well as improvements to many technologies first reviewed in 2018. Compared with our 2018 findings, many of the new technologies have helped produce sensors that are smaller, lighter, require less power, and have better range and resolution than those discussed in 2018. However, challenges still exist. There is no single currently available and FAA approved sensor suite that can adequately provide complete detect and avoid capabilities to meet the needs of UAS beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) in the civilian airspace.
Advances of early twenty-first century aviation and transportation technologies provide opportunities for enhanced aerial projects, and the overall integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS) has applications across a wide range of operations. Through these, remote operators have learned to manage several UAS at the same time in a variety of operational environments. The present work details a component piece of an ongoing body of research into multi-UAS operations. Beginning in early 2020, NASA has collaborated with Uber Technologies to design and develop concepts of operations, roles and responsibilities, and ground control station (GCS) concepts to enable food delivery operations via multiple, small UAS (sUAS). A cognitive walkthrough was chosen as the method for data collection. This allowed information to be gathered from UAS subject matter experts (SMEs) that could further mature designs for future human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulations; in addition, it allowed information to be collected remotely during the stringent restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, the described cognitive walkthrough activity utilized remote data collection protocols mediated through the usage of programs designed for presentation and telecommunications. Scenarios were designed, complete with airspace, contingencies, and remedial actions, to be presented to the SMEs. Information was collected using a combination of rating scales and open-ended questions. Results received from the SMEs revealed expected hazards, workloads, and information concerns inherent in the contingency scenarios. SMEs also provided insight into the design of GCS tools and displays as well as the duties and relationships of human operators (i.e., monitors) and automation (i.e., informers and flight managers). Implications of these findings are discussed.
As part of the Phase 2 UAS DAA MOPS, a Class 3 DAA system has been under development with the potential to resolve many of the limitations of Class 1 and 2 systems. A Class 3 system would combine the DAA and CA functions into a single, unified system, and would also extend the CA capabilities relative to TCAS II. Class 3 is enabled by the Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) XU, a next generation CA system developed specifically for UAS operations. Unlike Class 2 systems, ACAS XU provides CA protection against both cooperative and non-cooperative traffic. Class 3 systems also expand the CA logic to allow horizontal RAs in addition to vertical RAs. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate ACAS XU in a real-time, HITL simulation. The latest version of ACAS XU was implemented and pilots were tasked with responding to scripted traffic conflicts over the course of four experimental trials. Variables included the location of the ACAS XU guidance information (standalone vs. integrated) and traffic conflict type (DAA or CA threat). Sixteen active UAS pilots participated in the study, with ATC and ‘pseudo’ pilots acting as airspace confederates. Results showed that pilots were able to maintain DWC with ACAS XU at a rate comparable to previous research (~5%). Compliance rates to initial RAs were high (~90%) but dropped significantly when the target heading value issued during horizontal RAs were updated over the course of an encounter (30-70%). The implications of these findings on the display, alerting, and guidance requirements for Class 3 systems will be discussed.