SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
Systems Integration and Operationalization (SIO) Scope and Objectives, schedule, partnership requirements overview, etc. Kick off topics that will guide the course of the SIO partnership between NASA and PAE ISR.
The airspace operations demonstration (AOD) is intended to show that the Access 5 Step 1 functional requirements can be met. The demonstration will occur in two phases. The initial on-range phase will be carried out in restricted airspace to demonstrate the cooperative collision avoidance (CCA) functional requirements and to provide risk-reduction for the AOD by allowing the test team to rehearse some elements of the demonstration mission. The CCA system to be used in these flights is based on Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) which is a commercially-available system by which airplanes constantly broadcast their current position and altitude to other aircraft and ground resources over a dedicated radio datalink. The final phase will occur in the national airspace (NAS) and will be the formal demonstration of the remainder of the proposed functional requirements. The general objectives of the AOD are as follows: (1) Demonstrate that the UAS can aviate in the NAS (2) Demonstrate that the UAS can navigate in the NAS (3) Demonstrate that the UAS can communicate with the NAS (4) Demonstrate that the UAS can perform selected collision avoidance functions in the NAS (5) Demonstrate that the UAS can evaluate and avoid weather conflicts in the NAS (6) Demonstrate that the UAS can provide adequate command and control in the NAS In addition to the stated objectives, there are a number of goals for the flight demonstration. The demo can be accomplished successfully without achieving these goals, but these goals are to be used as a guideline for preparing for the mission. The goals are: (1) Mission duration of at least 24 hours (2) Loiter over heavy traffic to evaluate the data block issue identified during the Access 5 Airspace Operations Simulations (3) Document the contingency management process and lessons learned (4) Document the coordination process for Ground Control Stations (GCS) handoff (5) Document lessons learned regarding the process of flying in the NAS Preliminary planning for a notional mission to achieve the objectives and goals has been prepared. The planning is intended to serve as a guide for detailed planning of the AOD.
This presentation provides an overview of two recently completed human-in-the-loop simulations, conducted as part of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project. These studies investigated the effects of shorter RADAR surveillance ranges on DAA system performance. They were designed to serve as a validation of the fast-time simulation work performed by other groups working on the UAS-NAS project. They were also intended to establish a baseline for the Flight Test 6 Full Mission configuration flights. Low SWaP HITL 1 examined system performance with two candidate non-cooperative DAA well clear (DWC) definitions with a RADAR declaration range of 3.5nm. Low SWaP HITL 2 looked at DAA system performance with four different RADAR declaration ranges (1.5, 2.0, 2.5, & 3.0nm) with a non-cooperative DWC definition of 450ft vertical separation and 2200ft horizontal separation. The results of each study and the implications for FT6 are discussed.
As part of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) project, research on integrating small UAS (sUAS) into the NAS was underway by a human-systems integration (HSI) team at the NASA Langley Research Center. Minimal to no research has been conducted on the safe, effective, and efficient manner in which to integrate these aircraft into the NAS. sUAS are defined as aircraft weighing 55 pounds or less. The objective of this human system integration team was to build a UAS Ground Control Station (GCS) and to develop a research test-bed and database that provides data, proof of concept, and human factors guidelines for GCS operations in the NAS. The objectives of this experiment were to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of flying sUAS in Class D and Class G airspace utilizing manual control inputs and voice radio communications between the pilot, mission control, and air traffic control. The design of the experiment included three sets of GCS display configurations, in addition to a hand-held control unit. The three different display configurations were VLOS, VLOS + Primary Flight Display (PFD), and VLOS + PFD + Moving Map (Map). Test subject pilots had better situation awareness of their vehicle position, altitude, airspeed, location over the ground, and mission track using the Map display configuration. This configuration allowed the pilots to complete the mission objectives with less workload, at the expense of having better situation awareness of other aircraft. The subjects were better able to see other aircraft when using the VLOS display configuration. However, their mission performance, as well as their ability to aviate and navigate, was reduced compared to runs that included the PFD and Map displays.
The UAS in the NAS project is studying the minimum operational performance standards for unmanned aerial systems (UAS's) detect-and-avoid (DAA) system in order to operate in the National Airspace System. The DoD's Science and research Panel (SARP) Well-Clear Workshop is investigating the time and spatial boundary at which an UAS violates well-clear. NASA is supporting this effort through use of its Airspace Concept Evaluation System (ACES) simulation platform. This briefing presents the final results to the SARP, which will be used to judge the three candidate well-clear definitions, and for the selection of the most operationally suitable option.
The UAS in the NAS project is studying the minimum operational performance standards for unmanned aerial systems (UAS's) detect-and-avoid (DAA) system in order to operate in the National Airspace System. The project is executing a series of fast-time simulation, human-in-the-loop experiments, and flight test in support of this effort. Officials of the Swiss Government (Peter Winter, Director of Aeronautical Systems, and Michel Godinat, Head of the Certification Office) are visiting NASA to become more familiar with the advances being made to integrate UAS into civilian airspace. This briefing will review the activities and results over the past 3 years within the Separation AssuranceSense-and-Avoid Interoperability team.
The UAS in the NAS project is studying the minimum operational performance standards for unmanned aerial systems (UAS's) detect-and-avoid (DAA) system in order to operate in the National Airspace System. The DoD's Science and research Panel Well-Clear Workshop is investigating the time and spatial boundary at which an UAS violates well-clear. NASA is supporting this effort through use of its Airspace Concept Evaluation System (ACES) simulation platform. This presentation reviews how the simulation was used to support this work, lessons learned during the experiment, and introduces preliminary results.
This presentation contains the analysis results of NAS-wide fast-time simulations with UAS and VFR traffic for a single day for evaluating the performance of Detect-and-Avoid (DAA) alerting and guidance systems. This purpose of this study was to help refine and validate MOPS alerting and guidance requirements. In this study, we generated plots of all performance metrics that are specified by RTCA SC-228 Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS): 1) to evaluate the sensitivity of alerting parameters on the performance metrics of each DAA alert type: Preventive, Corrective, and Warning alerts and 2) to evaluate the effect of sensor uncertainty on DAA alerting and guidance performance.
There is an increasing need to fly UAS in the NAS to perform missions of vital importance to National Security and Defense, Emergency Management, and Science as well as commercial applications (e.g. cargo transport). To enable integration of UAS into the National Airspace System, several critical technical barriers must be eliminated, including: Separation Assurance/Sense and Avoid - the uncertainty surrounding the ability to interoperate in ATC environments and maintain safe separation from other aircraft in the absence of an on-board pilot. Human Systems Integration - lack of standards and guidelines with respect to UAS display information as well as lack of Ground Control Station (GCS) design requirements to operate in the NAS. Certification - lack of airworthiness requirements and safety-related data specific to the full range of UAS, or for their avionics systems or other components. Communications - lack of standard, certifiable data links and aviation safety spectrum to operate such links for civil UAS control communications.
RTCA Special Committee 228 is a consortium of government, industry, and academic organizations tasked to develop minimum operational performance standards for UAS detect and avoid systems. The UAS in the NAS (National Airspace System) project is studying the minimum operational performance standards for unmanned aerial systems (UAS's) detect-and-avoid (DAA) system in order to operate in the National Airspace System. Over the past 3 years, the project has executed a series of fast-time simulation, human-in-the-loop experiments, and flight tests in support of this effort. The purpose of this briefing is to summarize the models developed and data collected to overcome UAS integration barriers, so UAS can remain well clear of all traffic.
As part of the Phase 1 efforts of NASA's UAS-in-the-NAS Project a task was initiated to explore the merits of developing a system simulation capability for UAS to address airworthiness certification requirements. The core of the capability would be a software representation of an unmanned vehicle, including all of the relevant avionics and flight control system components. The specific system elements could be replaced with hardware representations to provide Hardware-in-the-Loop (HWITL) test and evaluation capability. The UAS Systems Integration and Validation Laboratory (UAS-SIVL) was created to provide a UAS-systems integration, validation, and diagnostics hardware-in-the-loop simulation capability. This paper discusses how SIVL provides a robust and flexible simulation framework that permits the study of failure modes, effects, propagation paths, criticality, and mitigation strategies to help develop safety, reliability, and design data that can assist with the development of certification standards, means of compliance, and design best practices for civil UAS.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
This cover sheet is for version 2 of the weather requirements document along with Appendix A. The purpose of the requirements document was to identify and to list the weather functional requirements needed to achieve the Access 5 vision of "operating High Altitude, Long Endurance (HALE) Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) routinely, safely, and reliably in the National Airspace System (NAS) for Step 1." A discussion of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) references and related policies, procedures, and standards is provided as basis for the recommendations supported within this document. Additional procedures and reference documentation related to weather functional requirements is also provided for background. The functional requirements and related information are to be proposed to the FAA and various standards organizations for consideration and approval. The appendix was designed to show that sources of flight weather information are readily available to UAS pilots conducting missions in the NAS. All weather information for this presentation was obtained from the public internet.
NASA has developed a project plan to address issues related to UAS access to the NAS The plan is being formulated with inputs from our stakeholders. NASA will work with our stakeholders to develop ConOps and a national roadmap to determine key research technologies and policy issues to enable UAS access to the NAS. NASA will use ConOps and roadmap to either validate current NASA research investment areas and make any necessary changes to proposed UAS research portfolio. NASA will conduct integration and testing of key research areas to enable UAS access to the NAS. Use phase I to do detailed test planning for phase II Assist subelements with test planning Assist with documenting test objectives, data and facilities/infrastructure requirements, and detailed test planning Provide facilities/infrastructure to meet test requirements Provide interfaces between tools Develop, document, and execute data handling and dissemination plans Provide a test engineer to facilitate scheduling of facilities, support specific equipment and software needs, track schedule progress, and monitor changes to schedule Provide guidance for alternative facilities or equipment to mitigate risk associated with loss of availability Provide opportunities for subelements to gather data in relevant and increasingly complex environments
This presentation is a review of detect and avoid (DAA) research conducted over the last five years in support of RTCCA SC 228.
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.
This study evaluated the effects of communications delays and winds on air traffic controller ratings of acceptability of horizontal miss distances (HMDs) for encounters between Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and manned aircraft in a simulation of the Dallas-Ft. Worth (DFW) airspace. Fourteen encounters per hour were staged in the presence of moderate background traffic. Seven recently retired controllers with experience at DFW served as subjects. Guidance provided to the UAS pilots for maintaining a given HMD was provided by information from Detect and Avoid (DAA) self-separation algorithms (Stratway+) displayed on the Multi-Aircraft Control System. This guidance consisted of amber "bands" on the heading scale of the UAS navigation display indicating headings that would result in a loss of well clear between the UAS and nearby traffic. Winds tested were successfully handled by the DAA algorithms and did not affect the controller acceptability ratings of the HMDs. Voice communications delays for the UAS were also tested and included one-way delay times of 0, 400, 1200, and 1800 msec. For longer communications delays, there were changes in strategy and communications flow that were observed and reported by the controllers. The aim of this work is to provide useful information for guiding future rules and regulations applicable to flying UAS in the NAS. Information from this study will also be of value to the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) Special Committee 228 - Minimum Performance Standards for UAS.
As part of NASAs UAS in the NAS project, human factor guidelines are being developed for the ground control station of unmanned aircraft systems. A critical task for the pilot of a UAS is the management and control of the terrestrial radio links used to provide control of the vehicle and relay communications with air traffic control. An analysis of the task of the UAS pilot has been conducted to identify areas where guidelines are required. This analysis has identified a set of information requirements that must be supported by the radio equipment used to provide Control and Non-payload Communication (CNPC). Key requirements include the need for an alert when the link is lost, information on the current quality and latency of the link, and information to enable the future quality of the link to be anticipated as the aircraft changes location. These identified requirements can assist in the development of minimum operational performance standards for CNPC equipment.