Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “UAS pilots”

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 235 records · Page 13

Identifying Human Factors Research for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Advanced Air Mobility (AAM)

This paper identifies some of the key human factors (HF) challenges when integrating Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) into the civil airspace. Unique HF considerations—those which are derived from the key differentiating aspects of UAS/AAM compared to conventional aviation—are the primary basis for identifying HF research opportunities. By identifying what makes UAS and AAM fundamentally different from conventional aviation, from a human integration perspective, HF research can be targeted to effectively inform best practices, standards, policy, guidance, and regulations associated with aircraft and air traffic systems and operations. HF research areas are discussed within the following topic areas: Sustained low-altitude operations; loss of natural sensing; novel aircraft; novel operations; link management and lost link; link performance; distributed pilot teams; and increased automation. The identified research descriptions are intended to serve as illustrative examples of what research is fundamental, and why. They are not intended to prescribe, prioritize or exclude research.

AAM↗

Identifying Human Factors Research for Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Advanced Air Mobility

This paper identifies some of the key human factors (HF) challenges when integrating Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) into the civil airspace. Unique HF considerations—those which are derived from the key differentiating aspects of UAS/AAM compared to conventional aviation—are the primary basis for identifying HF research opportunities. By identifying what makes UAS and AAM fundamentally different from conventional aviation, from a human integration perspective, HF research can be targeted to effectively inform best practices, standards, policy, guidance, and regulations associated with aircraft and air traffic systems and operations. HF research areas are discussed within the following topic areas: Sustained low-altitude operations; loss of natural sensing; novel aircraft; novel operations; link management and lost link; link performance; distributed pilot teams; and increased automation. The identified research descriptions are intended to serve as illustrative examples of what research is fundamental, and why. They are not intended to prescribe, prioritize or exclude research.

AAM↗

Integration Test and Evaluation (IT&E) Flight Test Series 6 Live Virtual Constructive - Distributed Environment (LVC-DE) Test Report

The goals of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) (also UAS-NAS) Project are to reduce the barriers for UAS access and its integration into the NAS. The UAS-NAS project and industry stakeholders conducted a series of flight tests integrating technologies from the Modeling & Simulation (M&S), Human Systems Integration (HSI), and Communication and Control (C2), and Integration, Test & Evaluation (IT&E) research areas. The last of the flight test series, Flight Test Series 6 (FT6) was conducted in late 2019 and focused on evaluating the interaction of the airborne non-cooperative surveillance system and the Detect and Avoid (DAA) technology. The DAA system generated conflict alert and guidance for pilots using a Research Ground Control System (RGCS) to avoid intruder aircraft. The conflict alerting and guidance information was presented on the RGCS’s display using symbology developed by the human factors team. The objective of FT6 was to investigate the interoperability of Low Size, Weight, and Power (Low SWaP) sensors with the DAA alerting, guidance, and display requirements. To support this goal, the distributed test environments (DTE) were developed at Ames Research Center (ARC) and Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC) and securely linked over a Virtual Private Network (VPN). These environments took advantage of existing Live Virtual Constructive (LVC) technologies to support research observation at both Centers with the insertion of live UAS and manned intruder aircraft into a simulated NAS environment with Air Traffic Control (ATC) and constructive manned aircraft. The experiment was distributed between AFRC flight operations and research facilities and the Distributed Simulation Research Laboratory (DSRL) and Software Development Laboratory (SDL) in building N243 at ARC. The Air Traffic Controller and pseudo pilots operated from the DSRL and SDL, respectively, using the Multi-Aircraft Control System (MACS). The test subject and researchers operated from the Research Ground Control Station (RGCS) at AFRC using the Vigilant Spirit Control Station (VSCS) and associated DAA software and displays. Flight Operation for the unmanned aircraft (UA) and manned intruder traffic was conducted at AFRC. Virtual traffic was managed by ARC. Voice distribution was accomplished using a combination of disparate communication systems at ARC and AFRC. The purpose of this document is to record the development, design, and execution of activities in support of the FT6 efforts from the perspective of the ARC IT&E team. Furthermore, the Armstrong IT&E team has published a thorough FT6 Test Report, with emphasis on flight test support, facilities and vehicle development; this report complements the Armstrong report. Analysis of collected FT6 data will be conducted and reported by the M&S and HSI teams and will be published in separate reports.

UAS-NAS↗

UAS Integration into the NAS: Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Delegation of Separation

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 mandates UAS integration in the NAS by 2015. Operators must be able to safely maneuver UAS to maintain separation and collision avoidance. Delegated Separation is defined as the transfer of responsibility for maintaining separation between aircraft or vehicles from the air navigation service provider to the relevant flight operator, and will likely begin in sparsely trafficked areas before moving to more heavily populated airspace. As UAS operate primarily in areas with lower traffic density and perform maneuvers routinely that are currently managed through special handling, they have the advantage of becoming an early adopter of delegated separation. This experiment will examine if UAS are capable of performing delegated separation in 5 nm horizontal and 1000 ft vertical distances under two delegation conditions. In Extended Delegation, ATC are in charge of identifying problems and delegating to pilot identification and implementation of the solution and monitoring. In Full Delegation, the pilots are responsible for all tasks related to separation assurance: identification of problems and solutions, implementation and monitoring.

unmanned systems↗

Cellular Based Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems MIMO Communications

The use of remotely piloted unmanned aircraft systems/vehicles (UAS/UAV or drones) increases dramatically in recent years. This paper discusses the use of multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) technologies in cellular (i.e., LTE) based small UAS (sUAS) communications. More specifically, we will first provide background information about this work, followed by a review of state-of-the-art. Then, we will discuss the benefits of MIMO technologies and propose practical MIMO configurations (e.g., the type, size and number of antennas) that are suitable for NASA's sUAS research and operations. Finally, the design tradeoff among multiplexing, diversity, and interference/jamming cancellation will also be discussed.

Li, Hongxiang↗

Cellular Based Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) MIMO Communications

The use of remotely piloted unmanned aircraft systems/vehicles (UAS/UAV or drones) increases dramatically in recent years. This paper discusses the use of multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) technologies in cellular (i.e., LTE) based small UAS (sUAS) communications. More specifically, we will first provide background information about this work, followed by a review of state-of-the-art. Then, we will discuss the benefits of MIMO technologies and propose practical MIMO configurations (e.g., the type, size and number of antennas) that are suitable for NASA's sUAS research and operations. Finally, the design tradeoff among multiplexing, diversity, and interference/jamming cancellation will also be discussed.

Li, Hongxiang↗

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project: Detect and Avoid Display Evaluations in Support of SC-228 Minimum Operational Performance Standards Development

The primary activity for the UAS-NAS Human Systems Integration (HSI) sub-project in Phase 1 was support of RTCA Special Committee 228 Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS). We provide data on the effect of various Detect and Avoid (DAA) display features with respect to pilot performance of the remain well clear function in order to determine the minimum requirements for DAA displays.

detect and avoid↗

Automatic Execution of Collision Avoidance and Return to Course Analysis (D.6.20) Experiment Review

This presentation details the experimental design for an upcoming engineering analysis of a mock version of the Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS), specifically the 'Xu' variant, which is designed for unmanned aircraft platforms. As a component of the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Integration into the National Airspace System (NAS) project, this engineering analysis intends to study aspects of ACAS Xu in two parts. In the first phase of the study, the display and alerting guidance for collision avoidance (CA) resolution advisories (RA) shown to pilots at a ground control station will be manipulated, varying in level of RA transparency and presentation of safe maneuver parameters. The second phase of the engineering analysis will examine pilots' response to increasing levels of automation in the tasks of collision avoidance and return-to-course (RTC).

Sadler, Garrett↗

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↗

Pilot Aircraft Interface Objectives/Rationale

Objective: Database and proof of concept for guidelines for GCS compliance a) Rationale: 1) Provide research test-bed to develop guidelines. 2) Modify GCS for NAS Compliance to provide proof of concept. b) Approach: 1) Assess current state of GCS technology. 2) Information Requirements Definition. 3) SME Workshop. 4) Modify an Existing GCS for NAS Compliance. 5) Define exemplar UAS (choose system to develop prototype). 6) Define Candidate Displays & Controls. 7) Evaluate/ refine in Simulations. 8) Demonstrate in flight. c) Deliverables: 1) Information Requirements Report. 2) Workshop Proceedings. 3) Technical Reports/ papers on Simulations & Flight Demo. 4) Database for guidelines.

Shively, Jay↗

UAS Integration into the NAS Project

The goal of the UAS Integration in the NAS Project is to contribute capabilities that reduce technical barriers related to the safety and operational challenges associated with enabling routine UAS access to the NAS This goal will be accomplished through a two-phased approach of system-level integration of key concepts, technologies and/or procedures, and demonstrations of integrated capabilities in an operationally relevant environment. Technical objectives include: PHASE 1: a) Validating the key technical areas identified by this project. System-level analyses, a State of the Art Analysis (SOAA), and a ConOps will identify the challenges and barriers preventing routine UAS access to the NAS. b) Developing a national roadmap and gap analysis identifying specific deliverables in the area of operations, procedures, and technologies that will impact future policy decisions. PHASE 2: a) Provide regulators with a methodology for developing airworthiness requirements for UAS and data to support development of certifications standards and regulatory guidance. b) Provide systems-level integrated testing of concepts and/or capabilities that address barriers to routine access to the NAS. Through simulation and flight testing, address issues including separation assurance, communications requirements, and Pilot Aircraft Interfaces (PAIs) in operationally relevant environments

Bauer, Jeff↗

Flight Test Overview for UAS Integration in the NAS Project

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is conducting a series of flight tests intended to support the reduction of barriers that prevent unmanned aircraft from flying without the required waivers from the Federal Aviation Administration. The most recent testing supported two separate test configurations. The first investigated the timing of Detect and Avoid (DAA) alerting thresholds using a radar-equipped unmanned vehicle and multiple live intruders flown at varying encounter geometries. The second configuration included a surrogate unmanned vehicle (flown from a ground control station, with a safety pilot on board) flying a mission in a virtual air traffic control airspace sector using research pilot displays and DAA advisories to maintain separation from live and virtual aircraft. The test was conducted over a seven-week span in the summer of 2015. The data from over 100 encounter sorties will be used to inform the RTCA Phase 1 Detect and Avoid and Command and Control Minimum Operating Performance Standards (MOPS) intended to be completed by the summer of 2016. Follow-on flight-testing is planned for the spring of 2016 to capture remaining encounters and support validation of the MOPS.

UAS↗

Evaluation of Synthetic Vision Display Concepts for Improved Awareness in Unusual Attitude Recovery Scenarios

A recent study conducted by the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) determined 40 percent of all fixed-wing fatal accidents, between 2001 and 2011, were caused by Loss-of-Control (LOC) in flight (National Transportation Safety Board, 2015). Based on their findings, CAST recommended manufacturers develop and implement virtual day-visual meteorological conditions (VMC) display systems, such as synthetic vision or equivalent systems (CAST, 2016). In a 2015 simulation study conducted at NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC), researchers gathered to test and evaluate virtual day-VMC displays under realistic flight operation scenarios capable of inducing reduced attention states in pilots. Each display concept was evaluated to determine its efficacy to improve attitude awareness. During the experiment, Evaluation Pilots (EPs) were shown the following three display concepts on the Primary Flight Display (PFD): Baseline, Synthetic Vision (SV) with color gradient, and SV with texture. The baseline configuration was a standard, conventional 'blue over brown' display. Experiment scenarios were simulated over water to evaluate Unusual Attitude (UA) recovery over 'featureless terrain' environments. Thus, the SV with color gradient configuration presented a 'blue over blue' display with a linear blue color progression, to differentiate attitude changes between sky and ocean. The SV with texture configuration presented a 'blue over blue' display with a black checkerboard texture atop a synthetic ocean. These displays were paired with a Background Attitude Indicator (BAI) concept. The BAI was presented across all four Head-Down Displays (HDDs), displaying a wide field-of-view blue-over-blue attitude indicator. The BAI aligned with the PFD and showed through the background of the navigation displays with opaque transparency. Each EP participated in a two-part experiment series with a total seventy-five trial runs: Part I included a set of twenty-five Unusual Attitude Recovery (UAR) scenarios; Part II included a set of fifty Attitude Memory Recall Tasks (AMRT). At the conclusion of each trial, EPs were asked to complete a set post-run questionnaires. Quantitative results showed that there were no significant statistical effects on UA recovery times when utilizing SV with or without the presence of a BAI. Qualitative results show the SV displays (color, texture) with BAI On are most preferred for both UA recognition and recovery when compared with the baseline display. When only comparing SV display concepts, EPs performed better when using the SV with texture, BAI On, than any other display configuration. This is an interesting find considering most EPs noted their preference towards the SV with color gradient when the BAI was on.

Nicholas, Stephanie↗

A Review of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Technology in Power Line Inspection

The electric power industry is one of the heaviest adopters of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) technology, utilizing their versatility to enhance power line maintenance programs. For reliable power grids, routine maintenance operations and rapid repair operations are required across substantial geographical distances. Both maintenance and repair decisions are driven by assessment operations, such as inspections of mechanical structures with visible-band sensors, inspections for the presence of high voltage coronas and hot spots with multispectral sensors, and surveying of equipment and adjacent features (particularly vegetation) with photogrammetric and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) sensors. Assessment was historically accomplished with manned helicopter flights or foot patrols. Recently, this critical economic segment harnessed advances in Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)technology to accomplish assessment tasks with faster results, lower cost, and higher levels of safety than historical methods. Adoption of UAVs in high-voltage electric power transmission activities is well underway. Adoption of UAVs for low voltage distribution activities is still emerging, with the important exception of post-storm damage assessment following major hurricanes (Harvey and Maria in 2017 and Michael in 2018). This report reviews the broad UAS adoption in high-voltage electric power transmission operations and early attempts at adoption in distribution operations. The ability to fly beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) may increase the advantages of UAV inspection over former options, and in the United States, regulators have approved two pilot projects to demonstrate BVLOS methods and their benefits in operating and maintaining the power grid.

UAV↗

Sense-and-Avoid Equivalent Level of Safety Definition for Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Revision 9

Since unmanned aircraft do not have a pilot on-board the aircraft, they cannot literally comply with the "see and avoid" requirement beyond a short distance from the location of the unmanned pilot. No performance standards are presently defined for unmanned Sense and Avoid systems, and the FAA has no published approval criteria for a collision avoidance system. Before the FAA can develop the necessary guidance (rules / regulations / policy) regarding the see-and-avoid requirements for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), a concise understanding of the term "equivalent level of safety" must be attained. Since this term is open to interpretation, the UAS industry and FAA need to come to an agreement on how this term can be defined and applied for a safe and acceptable collision avoidance capability for unmanned aircraft. Defining an equivalent level of safety (ELOS) for sense and avoid is one of the first steps in understanding the requirement and developing a collision avoidance capability. This document provides a functional level definition of see-and-avoid as it applies to unmanned aircraft. The sense and avoid ELOS definition is intended as a bridge between the see and avoid requirement and the system level requirements for unmanned aircraft sense and avoid systems. Sense and avoid ELOS is defined in a rather abstract way, meaning that it is not technology or system specific, and the definition provides key parameters (and a context for those parameters) to focus the development of cooperative and non-cooperative sense and avoid system requirements.

Source record↗

Operational Overview for UAS Integration in the NAS Project Flight Test Series 3

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in the National Airspace System Project has conducted a series of flight tests intended to support the reduction of barriers that prevent unmanned aircraft from flying without the required waivers from the Federal Aviation Administration. The 2015 Flight Test Series 3, supported two separate test configurations. The first configuration investigated the timing of Detect and Avoid alerting thresholds using a radar equipped unmanned vehicle and multiple live intruders flown at varying encounter geometries. The second configuration included a surrogate unmanned vehicle (flown from a ground control station, with a safety pilot on board) flying a mission in a virtual air traffic control airspace sector using research pilot displays and Detect and Avoid advisories to maintain separation from live and virtual aircraft. The test was conducted over an eight-week span within the R-2508 Special Use Airspace. Over 200 encounters were flown for the first configuration, and although the second configuration was cancelled after three data collection flights, Flight Test 3 proved to be invaluable for the purposes of planning, managing, and execution of this type of integrated flight test.

unmanned aircraft systems↗

Playbook for UAS: UX of Goal-Oriented Planning & Execution

We are evaluating the tool Playbook, a mission planning and scheduling tool used for analog missions and research experiments at NASA. We are adapting Playbook to support an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) demonstration that will simulate a "search and recover" mission. To support this demonstration, we need to test this software and its usability with human subjects. Playbook will be used to plan, edit, and monitor simulated UAV swarms, and we are interested in evaluating these capabilities. Allocation of roles and responsibilities between human-automation systems is key to promoting productive cooperation between these two agents. When guiding swarms the user should not be concerned with moving waypoints, adjusting heading and altitude or any other small actions that traditional pilots control. Providing situational awareness through sensor data including radar, heat, live camera feed, and topographic information are key when managing multiple UAVs together. First responders need a good picture of disaster areas in order to make informed decisions. These sensors can initiate movements in the mission that indicate when the human should take control of single aircraft.

UAV swarms↗

Evaluation, Analysis and Results of the DANTi Flight Test Data, the DAIDALUS Detect and Avoid Algorithm, and the DANTi Concept for Detect and Avoid in the Cockpit

The DAIDALUS Detect and Avoid Algorithm [1] was developed to address the operational needs of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) and meet the Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Detect and Avoid [2]. The DANTi (Detect and Avoid iN the cockpit) concept [3], developed at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center, leverages advancements achieved in surveillance and Detect and Avoid technologies for unmanned aircraft systems as a safety enhancing capability for pilots of manned aircraft. Pilots operating under Visual Flight Rules and not receiving Air Traffic Control radar services rely on see and avoid to remain well clear of other aircraft and avoid collisions. The DANTi concept has been conceived as a safety enhancement capability to remain well clear and avoid potential collisions. The DANTi concept uses a traffic display to provide situational awareness, conflict detection, alerting, and guidance to remain well clear.

Detect and Avoid↗