Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Detect and Avoid (DAA)”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2023

Detect-and-Avoid in Off-Nominal Situations for Supersonic Transport Aircraft in Upper Class E Airspace

This thesis researches potential failure conditions within supersonic and potential hypersonic aircraft. The most critical off-nominal situations have been identified to be Engine Failures, Rapid Decompression and High Altitude Radiation. Having in mind, current regulatory requirements as well as past operations of Concorde, potential locations for different speeds have been modeled to identify safe operational volumes. With an emphasis on the engine failure case as part of the thesis requirement, a potential first order approach to future DAA systems is described in order to add these models on top of current conflict resolution models.

supersonic↗
NASA NTRS2016

UAS Integration into the NAS: Detect and Avoid Display Evaluations in Support of SC-228 MOPS Development

At the May 2015 SC-228 meeting, requirements for TCAS II interoperability became elevated in priority. A TCAS interoperability work group was formed to identify and address key issuesquestions. The TCAS work group came up with an initial list of questions and a plan to address those questions. As part of that plan, NASA proposed to run a mini HITL to address display, alerting and guidance issues. A TCAS Interoperability Workshop was held to determine potential displayalertingguidance issues that could be explored in future NASA mini HITLS. Consensus on main functionality of DAA guidance when TCAS II RA occurs. Prioritized list of independent variables for experimental design. Set of use cases to stress TCAS Interoperability.

detect and avoid↗
NASA NTRS2017

UAS Integration in the NAS Project: Detect and Avoid Display UNITED Demo

This demo shows the UAS-NAS project's Vigilant Spirit Control Station developed in partnership with the U.S. Air Force Research Lab. Attendees will be able to view encounters and see how the DAA and TCAS II alerting and guidance displays are used to avoid simulated aircraft.

Roberts, Zachary↗
NASA NTRS2017

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project: Advanced Collision Avoidance System for UAS (ACAS Xu) Interoperability White Paper Presentation

The Phase 1 DAA Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) provided requirements for two classes of DAA equipment: equipment Class 1 contains the basic DAA equipment required to assist a pilot in remaining well clear, while equipment Class 2 integrates the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance (TCAS) II system. Thus, the Class 1 system provides RWC functionality only, while the Class 2 system is intended to provide both RWC and Collision Avoidance (CA) functionality, in compliance with the Minimum Aviation System Performance (MASPS) for the Interoperability of Airborne Collision Avoidance Systems. The FAAs TCAS Program Office is currently developing Airborne Collision Avoidance System X (ACAS X) to support the objectives of the Federal Aviation Administrations (FAA) Next Generation Air Transportation System Program (NextGen). ACAS X has a suite of variants with a common underlying design that are intended to be optimized for their intended airframes and operations. ACAS Xu being is designed for UAS and allows for new surveillance technologies and tailored logic for platforms with different performance characteristics. In addition to Collision Avoidance (CA) alerting and guidance, ACAS Xu is being tuned to provide RWC alerting and guidance in compliance with the SC 228 DAA MOPS. With a single logic performing both RWC and CA functions, ACAS Xu will provide industry with an integrated DAA solution that addresses many of the interoperability shortcomings of Phase I systems. While the MOPS for ACAS Xu will specify an integrated DAA system, it will need to show compliance with the RWC alerting thresholds and alerting requirements defined in the DAA Phase 2 MOPS. Further, some functional components of the ACAS Xu system such as the remote pilots displayed guidance might be mostly references to the corresponding requirements in the DAA MOPS. To provide a seamless, integrated, RWC-CA system to assist the pilot in remaining well clear and avoiding collisions, several issues need to be addressed within the Phase 2 SC-228 DAA efforts. Interoperability of the RWC and CA alerting and guidance, and ensuring pilot comprehension, compliance and performance, will be a primary research area.

detect and avoid↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

UAS Pilot Performance Comparisons with Different Low Size, Weight and Power Sensor Ranges

The present study evaluated the performance of UAS pilots under four simulated low size, weight, and power (SwaP) sensor ranges: 1.5nmi, 2.0nmi, 2.5nmi, and 3.0nmi. Nine active-duty UAS pilots responded to scripted DAA conflicts against non-cooperative intruders while flying a simulated RQ-7 Shadow at varied speeds along a pre-filed flight path in Class E airspace. Findings revealed a linear effect of sensor range on alerting time and separation performance, with nearly every DAA well clear (DWC) violation and all Near Mid-Air Collision (NMAC) events occurring below 2.5nmi. Response time differences at these reduced ranges were negligible due to the high frequency of warning-level alerts that require an immediate response. Since caution alert duration was truncated to some degree by each tested declaration range, pilots were often unable to coordinate their avoidance maneuvers with ATC prior to their uploads. Nonetheless, the 2.5nmi range allowed minimum alerting times that were sufficient for acceptable pilot performance. These findings will inform DAA system requirements for UAS with alternative surveillance equipment and aircraft performance capabilities. Implications on DAA display and sensor requirements are discussed.

unmanned aircraft systems↗
NASA NTRS2020

UAS Pilot Performance Comparisons with Different Low Size, Weight and Power Sensor Ranges

The present study evaluated the performance of UAS pilots under four simulated low size, weight, and power (SwaP) sensor ranges: 1.5nmi, 2.0nmi, 2.5nmi, and 3.0nmi. Nine active-duty UAS pilots responded to scripted DAA conflicts against non-cooperative intruders while flying a simulated RQ-7 Shadow at varied speeds along a pre-filed flight path in Class E airspace. Findings revealed a linear effect of sensor range on alerting time and separation performance, with nearly every DAA well clear (DWC) violation and all Near Mid-Air Collision (NMAC) events occurring below 2.5nmi. Response time differences at these reduced ranges were negligible due to the high frequency of warning-level alerts that require an immediate response. Since caution alert duration was truncated to some degree by each tested declaration range, pilots were often unable to coordinate their avoidance maneuvers with ATC prior to their uploads. Nonetheless, the 2.5nmi range allowed minimum alerting times that were sufficient for acceptable pilot performance. These findings will inform DAA system requirements for UAS with alternative surveillance equipment and aircraft performance capabilities. Implications on DAA display and sensor requirements are discussed.

unmanned aircraft systems↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

UAS Pilot Performance Comparisons with Different Low Size, Weight and Power Sensor Ranges

The present study evaluated the performance of UAS pilots under four simulated low size, weight, and power (SwaP) sensor ranges: 1.5nmi, 2.0nmi, 2.5nmi, and 3.0nmi. Nine active-duty UAS pilots responded to scripted DAA conflicts against non-cooperative intruders while flying a simulated RQ-7 Shadow at varied speeds along a pre-filed flight path in Class E airspace. Findings revealed a linear effect of sensor range on alerting time and separation performance, with nearly every DAA well clear (DWC) violation and all Near Mid-Air Collision (NMAC) events occurring below 2.5nmi. Response time differences at these reduced ranges were negligible due to the high frequency of warning-level alerts that require an immediate response. Since caution alert duration was truncated to some degree by each tested declaration range, pilots were often unable to coordinate their avoidance maneuvers with ATC prior to their uploads. Nonetheless, the 2.5nmi range allowed minimum alerting times that were sufficient for acceptable pilot performance. The study findings will inform DAA system requirements for UAS with alternative surveillance equipment and aircraft performance capabilities. Implications on DAA display and sensor requirements are discussed.

unmanned aircraft systems↗
NASA NTRS2019

UAS Integration in the NAS Detect and Avoid Subproject: Kitty Hawk - NASA Collaboration Discussion

NASA is conducting research under the UAS Integration in the NAS Project to develop standards that will enable mid-size and large unmanned aircraft to fly unrestricted in the National Airspace System. As these efforts move into its second phase, NASA is planning a series of flight tests and demonstrations, integrating industry partners' technologies. These events will not only provide valuable data to inform the RTCA Special Committee 228 DAA and C2 MOPS, but also provide an opportunity for the UAS community to test their technologies in a realistic environment. An overview of NASA UAS-NAS research will be presented touching on human systems integration, modeling and simulation and guidance and control. Plans for Flight Test 6 and Systems Integration Operationalization (SIO) will also be presented. The purpose of this meeting is to share with Kitty Hawk, at a high level, UAS-NAS research and discuss potential future collaboration between NASA and Kitty Hawk.

Shively, Jay↗
NASA NTRS2016

UAS Integration in the NAS Project: DAA-TCAS Interoperability "mini" HITL Primary Results

At the May 2015 SC-228 meeting, requirements for TCAS II interoperability became elevated in priority. A TCAS interoperability workgroup was formed to identify and address key issues/questions. The TCAS workgroup came up with an initial list of questions and a plan to address those questions. As part of that plan, NASA proposed to run a mini HITL to address display, alerting and guidance issues. A TCAS Interoperability Workshop was held to determine potential display/alerting/guidance issues that could be explored in future NASA mini HITLS. Consensus on main functionality of DAA guidance when TCAS II RA occurs. Prioritized list of independent variables for experimental design. Set of use cases to stress TCAS Interoperability.

human systems integration↗
NASA NTRS2017

NASA Phase 2 DAA HITL Schedule

This schedule discusses which HiTLs will be run and the timeframe for each event. This document also discusses system architecture and data flow. The simulation environments is also briefly addressed in the document including: the ground control station and the supported simulation software.

TCAS Interoperaability↗
NASA NTRS2023

ATM-X Urban Air Mobility: Assistive Detect and Avoid for UAM Operations Safety Evaluation Metrics

This document satisfies ATM-X UAM Task UID 989 “Evaluation Report on Tactical Separation Provision Services with Advisory Detect and Avoid Safety Metrics”. The first version of this document was delivered to the UAM team on October 3, 2022, for initial revision and comments.This current version incorporates all the comments received and is being delivered to the UAM subproject for a final revision before is submitted to satisfy the L1 milestone deliverable.

UAM↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Hazard Perception & Avoidance (HPA), Assured Vehicle Automation 1 Simulation (AVA-1h) Results Outbrief

In late 2022, the Human Autonomy Teaming Lab (NASA Ames Research Center) conducted a manned, human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation. This HITL was the lab’s second Hazard Perception and Avoidance (HPA) technical work under NASA’s Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), Automated Flight and Contingency Management (AFCM) Sub-Project. The goals were to assess detect and avoid technology for manned, electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft. This simulation tested Resolution Advisory (RA) responses and return-to-course (RTC) maneuvers for the second version of the Airborne Collision Avoidance System’s (ACAS) rotary-wing (Xr) variant. This was conducted at the center's Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS), on a motion-based platform, and was configured to fly eVTOL aircraft while maneuvering for intruding traffic. Variables for this study included ACAS Xr modes (i.e., TA/RA and DAA) and phases of flight (i.e., Cruise, Hover, and Approach). The data collected included response times, losses of well clear, and pilots' noncompliances to alerts and guidance as well as subjective ratings like acceptability and perceived workload. Additional details and future anticipations are also discussed.

ACAS Xr↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Human-in-the-Loop Evaluation of ACAS Xu

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.

unmanned aircraft systems↗
NASA NTRS2020

A Human-in-theLoop Evaluation of ACAS Xu

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.

unmanned aircraft systems↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Human-in-the-Loop Evaluation of ACAS Xu

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.

unmanned aircraft systems↗
NASA NTRS2019

Encounter-Based Simulation Architecture for Detect and Avoid Modeling

This paper presents an encounter-based simulation architecture developed at NASA to facilitate flexible and efficient Detect and Avoid modeling in parametric or tradespace studies on large data sets. The basic premise of this tool is that large-scale input data can be reduced to a set of `canonical encounters' and that using the reduced data in simulations does not lead to loss of fidelity. A canonical encounter is specified as ownship and intruder flight portions potentially resulting in a loss of well clear along with a set of properties that characterize the encounter. The advantages of using canonical encounters include faster simulations, reduced memory footprint, ability to select encounters based on user-specified criteria, shared encounters across multiple teams, peer-reviewed encounters, and a better understanding of the input data set, to name a few.

MOPS↗
NASA NTRS2019

Encounter-Based Simulation Architecture for Detect-And-Avoid Modeling

This paper presents an encounter-based simulation architecture developed at NASA to facilitate flexible and efficient Detect and Avoid modeling in parametric or tradespace studies on large data sets. The basic premise of this tool is that large-scale input data can be reduced to a set of `canonical encounters' and that using the reduced data in simulations does not lead to loss of fidelity. A canonical encounter is specified as ownship and intruder flight portions potentially resulting in a loss of well clear along with a set of properties that characterize the encounter. The advantages of using canonical encounters include faster simulations, reduced memory footprint, ability to select encounters based on user-specified criteria, shared encounters across multiple teams, peer-reviewed encounters, and a better understanding of the input data set, to name a few.

MOPS↗