SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Alert”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 253 records · Page 14

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2010

Tactical Conflict Detection in Terminal Airspace

Air traffic systems have long relied on automated short-term conflict prediction algorithms to warn controllers of impending conflicts (losses of separation). The complexity of terminal airspace has proven difficult for such systems as it often leads to excessive false alerts. Thus, the legacy system, called Conflict Alert, which provides short-term alerts in both en-route and terminal airspace currently, is often inhibited or degraded in areas where frequent false alerts occur, even though the alerts are provided only when an aircraft is in dangerous proximity of other aircraft. This research investigates how a minimal level of flight intent information may be used to improve short-term conflict detection in terminal airspace such that it can be used by the controller to maintain legal aircraft separation. The flight intent information includes a site-specific nominal arrival route and inferred altitude clearances in addition to the flight plan that includes the RNAV (Area Navigation) departure route. A new tactical conflict detection algorithm is proposed, which uses a single analytic trajectory, determined by the flight intent and the current state information of the aircraft, and includes a complex set of current, dynamic separation standards for terminal airspace to define losses of separation. The new algorithm is compared with an algorithm that imitates a known en-route algorithm and another that imitates Conflict Alert by analysis of false-alert rate and alert lead time with recent real-world data of arrival and departure operations and a large set of operational error cases from Dallas/Fort Worth TRACON (Terminal Radar Approach Control). The new algorithm yielded a false-alert rate of two per hour and an average alert lead time of 38 seconds.

Tang, Huabin↗

NASA NTRS2016

Airport Traffic Conflict Detection and Resolution Algorithm Evaluation

Two conflict detection and resolution (CD&R) algorithms for the terminal maneuvering area (TMA) were evaluated in a fast-time batch simulation study at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center. One CD&R algorithm, developed at NASA, was designed to enhance surface situation awareness and provide cockpit alerts of potential conflicts during runway, taxi, and low altitude air-to-air operations. The second algorithm, Enhanced Traffic Situation Awareness on the Airport Surface with Indications and Alerts (SURF IA), was designed to increase flight crew awareness of the runway environment and facilitate an appropriate and timely response to potential conflict situations. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the performance of the aircraft-based CD&R algorithms during various runway, taxiway, and low altitude scenarios, multiple levels of CD&R system equipage, and various levels of horizontal position accuracy. Algorithm performance was assessed through various metrics including the collision rate, nuisance and missed alert rate, and alert toggling rate. The data suggests that, in general, alert toggling, nuisance and missed alerts, and unnecessary maneuvering occurred more frequently as the position accuracy was reduced. Collision avoidance was more effective when all of the aircraft were equipped with CD&R and maneuvered to avoid a collision after an alert was issued. In order to reduce the number of unwanted (nuisance) alerts when taxiing across a runway, a buffer is needed between the hold line and the alerting zone so alerts are not generated when an aircraft is behind the hold line. All of the results support RTCA horizontal position accuracy requirements for performing a CD&R function to reduce the likelihood and severity of runway incursions and collisions.

Jones, Denise R.↗

NASA NTRS1993

Flight crew interface aspects of forward-looking airborne windshear detection systems

The goal of this research effort was to conduct analyses and research which could provide guidelines for design of the crew interface of an integrated windshear system. Addressed were HF issues, crew/system requirements, candidate display formats, alerting criteria, and crew procedures. A survey identified five flight management issues as top priority: missed alert acceptability; avoidance distance needed; false alert acceptability; nuisance rate acceptability; and crew procedures. Results of a simulation study indicated that the warning time for a look-ahead alert needs to be between 11 and 36 seconds (target of 23 seconds) before the reactive system triggers in order to be effective. Pilots considered the standard go-around maneuver most appropriate for look-ahead alerts, and the escape maneuvers used did not require lateral turns. Prototype display formats were reviewed or developed for alerting the crew; providing guidance to avoid or escape windshear; and status displays to provide windshear situational awareness. The three alerting levels now in use were considered appropriate, with a fourth (time-critical) level as a possible addition, although many reviewers felt only two levels of alerting were needed. Another survey gathered expert opinion on what crew procedures and alerting criteria should be used for look-ahead, or integrated, windshear systems, with a wide diversity of opinion in these areas.

Anderson, Charles D.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Human Factors Evaluation of Conflict Detection Tool for Terminal Area

A conflict detection and resolution tool, Terminal-area Tactical Separation-Assured Flight Environment (T-TSAFE), is being developed to improve the timeliness and accuracy of alerts and reduce the false alert rate observed with the currently deployed technology. The legacy system in use today, Conflict Alert, relies primarily on a dead reckoning algorithm, whereas T-TSAFE uses intent information to augment dead reckoning. In previous experiments, T-TSAFE was found to reduce the rate of false alerts and increase time between the alert to the controller and a loss of separation over the legacy system. In the present study, T-TSAFE was tested under two meteorological conditions, 1) all aircraft operated under instrument flight regimen, and 2) some aircraft operated under mixed operating conditions. The tool was used to visually alert controllers to predicted Losses of separation throughout the terminal airspace, and show compression errors, on final approach. The performance of T-TSAFE on final approach was compared with Automated Terminal Proximity Alert (ATPA), a tool recently deployed by the FAA. Results show that controllers did not report differences in workload or situational awareness between the T-TSAFE and ATPA cones but did prefer T-TSAFE features over ATPA functionality. T-TSAFE will provide one tool that shows alerts in the data blocks and compression errors via cones on the final approach, implementing all tactical conflict detection and alerting via one tool in TRACON airspace.

Verma, Savita Arora↗

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 (Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) 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.

terminal area↗

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 NTRS1999

Using the World Wide Web for GIDEP Problem Data Processing at Marshall Space Flight Center

Since April 1997, Marshall Space Flight Center has been using electronic transfer and the web to support our processing of the Government-Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP) and NASA ALERT information. Specific aspects include: (1) Extraction of ASCII text information from GIDEP for loading into Word documents for e-mail to ALERT actionees; (2) Downloading of GIDEP form image formats in Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) for internal storage display on the MSFC ALERT web page; (3) Linkage of stored GRDEP problem forms with summary information for access from the MSFC ALERT Distribution Summary Chart or from an html table of released MSFC ALERTs (4) Archival of historic ALERTs for reference by GIDEP ID, MSFC ID, or MSFC release date; (5) On-line tracking of ALERT response status using a Microsoft Access database and the web (6) On-line response to ALERTs from MSFC actionees through interactive web forms. The technique, benefits, effort, coordination, and lessons learned for each aspect are covered herein.

McPherson, John W.↗

NASA NTRS2019

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project: ACAS Xu HITL Overview

This presentation provides an overview of a recently completed human-in-the-loop simulation, conducted as part of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project. This study 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 location of the ACAS Xu traffic information - it was either presented within an 'integrated' display or a 'standalone' display, where the traffic information was separated from the vehicle control interfaces and navigational information. The presentation covers the test set-up, scenario design, and facilities utilized in this experiment. The primary dependent variables are listed, but no detailed results are included in this outbrief since data analysis is still underway. Goal: assess ACAS Xu Run 5 in a HITL setting to measure pilot & system performance – RWC alerting and guidance – RA alerting and guidance • Horizontal-only, vertical-only, and blended RAs • Strengthening RAs, reversals and added/removed RAs during blended maneuvers – Incorporate realistic sensor noise into the simulation environment – Compare pilot and DAA system performance back to NASA’s Phase 1 DAA MOPS V&V HITL • We leveraged the findings of an engineering analysis conducted in March to help inform how to implement the Xu logic – Part 1 focused on how to display horizontal-only, vertical-only and blended RAs – Part 2 focused on how to display automated RA responses Xu Engineering Analysis Results Part 1 objectives: – Characterize pilot responses to (canned) ACAS Xu RAs in a variety of display configurations • With vs. Without text accompaniment • Simple vs. ‘Advanced’ aural alerting • Results – Pilots struggled to meet 5 seconds initial response requirement • Particularly against horizontal and blended RAs – Pilots failed to respond more quickly to secondary RAs • Expected response time to subsequent RAs = 2.5 seconds No clear effect of the different alerting conditions on response times – Response times primarily driven by RA type • Pilots demonstrated high level of compliance with RAs and self-reported Xu alerting and guidance as being acceptable – 1/5 reported text as being necessary – 4/5 wanted the aural alert to retain the original RA sequence (i.e., issue a follow-on RA second rather than first) – 4/5 wanted to retain the “Maintain Heading/Vertical Speed” aural alert in the event that the pilot reached their target response at the time of secondary RA Based on these results, we decided on the following for the HITL experimental design: – Incorporated an ‘auto-fill’ feature in Vigilant Spirit that removes the need for pilots to manually enter a heading or altitude for RAs • Pilots only have to click ‘Send’ to upload the RA target heading/altitude – Did not include an RA ‘text box’ • The auto-fill feature largely replaces the purpose of the text box – Using a combination of the ‘Basic’ and ‘Advanced’ aural alerting • In case of blended maneuvers will issue “Maintain Heading/Vertical Rate” if pilot has reached 1st RA target at the time the 2nd RA is issued • Integration and testing with Xu Run 5 also resulted in us adding display logic to modify how horizontal RAs are presented – Target heading was shown to update at approx. 1 Hz making it difficult for pilots to implement – Display logic limited horizontal RA strengthening to once every 5 seconds • Did not impact timing of reversals, new RAs (i.e., blended), or CoC Engineering Analysis Results

human systems integration↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Helicopter Pilot Assessments of the Airborne Collision Avoidance System XR With Automated Maneuvering

The Airborne Collision Avoidance System X (ACAS X) is a next-generation collision avoidance tool developed to support different aircraft types and operations. The rotorcraft variant – referred to as ACAS XR – is designed to accommodate existing helicopter platforms as well as in-development, electric vertical takeoff and landing concepts, which are critical to the emerging concept of operations referred to as Advanced Air Mobility. The fundamental role of ACAS XR is to provide Detect and Avoid (DAA) and/or Collision Avoidance (CA) protection against airborne traffic. DAA alerting and guidance in the context of ACAS XR is caution-level and “suggestive,” and is to be used by the pilot if, and when, they decide to maneuver against an identified threat to DAA “well clear.” The CA alerting, by contrast, is warning-level and “directive,” with the pilot required to comply with the associated guidance to prevent a predicted Near Midair Collision (NMAC). The CA alerts generated by ACAS XR are referred to as Resolution Advisories (RAs) consistent with previous CA systems. Unlike earlier CA systems, ACAS XR issues RAs in the horizontal and vertical dimensions as well as multi-axis RAs (referred to as “Blended” RAs). According to the Minimal Operational Performance Standards of DAA systems for Unmanned Aircraft Systems, maneuvers to comply with RAs may be automated, whereas maneuvers based on DAA alerting assume a manual response. The current study was a human-in-the-loop simulation that presented rotorcraft pilots with ACAS XR alerts and guidance in a fixed-base eVTOL simulator with varying levels of automation. Objective results showed that pilots complied with all RAs within the expected 5-second time window and responded to DAA alerts quicker than in earlier studies with ACAS XU. Pilots often made larger horizontal deviations during Manual RAs, but often favored vertical and blended maneuvers. No NMACs occurred, and losses of well clear were mainly attributed to the obligation of the pilots and system to maneuver only after the CA phase of the encounter had begun. Other losses were due to pilots’ noncompliance or disregard for ACAS XR’s alerting and guidance. Noncompliance with RAs most frequently occurred when pilots determined they were too close to the terrain to continue to follow Descend RAs, performing vertical maneuvers instead of following Horizontal RAs, or rejecting Horizontal RA updates because they felt that enough maneuvering had been performed. Subjectively, pilots found the DAA and RA alerting and guidance intuitive and useful for VFR helicopter operations. Slightly more pilots preferred the Automated RA condition to the Manual RA condition. Lastly, they also felt that ACAS led to occasional unsafe Descend RAs. Caveats and future implications are discussed.

eVTOL↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Helicopter Pilot Assessments of the Airborne Collision Avoidance System XR With Automated Maneuvering

eVTOL↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Rise and Shine: Using Light as a Countermeasure to Sleep Inertia

INTRODUCTION: Sleep inertia describes the phenomenon of sleepiness and poor performance experienced after waking from sleep. This period of impaired alertness and performance is of significant concern to workers who nap on shift, or work on-call and are required to perform safety-critical tasks soon after waking (e.g., emergency services, healthcare, military). Light has been shown to acutely improve alertness during sleep deprivation and circadian misalignment. In this study, we assessed the efficacy of blue-enriched light to improve alertness and mood immediately after waking from SWS, i.e., during the sleep inertia period. METHODS: Twelve participants kept a sleep schedule of 8.5 h for 5 nights and 5 h for one night prior to the overnight laboratory visit (confirmed by actigraphy). Participants went to bed at their scheduled habitual bedtime in the laboratory and were monitored by standard polysomnography. After at least 5 min of SWS, participants were awoken and exposed to either red ambient light (control) or blue-enriched light (light) for 1 h. During this time, participants completed a subjective scale of alertness (Karolinska Sleepiness Scale, KSS) and visual analogue scales (VAS) of mood at 2 min, 17 min, 32 min, and 47 min after waking. Following this sleep inertia measurement period, all lights were turned off and participants were allowed to return to sleep. They were then awoken again from their subsequent SWS period and exposed to the opposite condition (control or light). A linear mixed-effects model with fixed effects of condition, time, and condition*time and a random effect of participant was used to determine the impact of light across the testing period. An average of baseline responses (pre-sleep) was included as a covariate. RESULTS: Compared to the control condition, participants exposed to blue-enriched light reported feeling more alert (KSS: F1,77=4.955, p=.029; VASalert: F1,77=8.226, p=.005), more cheerful (VAScheerful: F1,77=8.615, p=.004), less depressed (VASdepressed: F1,77=4.649, p=.034), and less lethargic (VASlethargic: F1,77=5.652, p=.020). DISCUSSION: Exposure to blue-enriched light immediately after waking from SWS may help to improve subjective alertness and mood. Future analyses will explore whether these findings extend to effects on cognitive performance. This countermeasure to sleep inertia may be suitable for implementation to alert crew members during mid-sleep emergencies but requires further testing in field settings.

alertness↗

NASA NTRS1978

NASA aviation safety reporting system

An analytical study of reports relating to cockpit altitude alert systems was performed. A recent change in the Federal Air Regulation permits the system to be modified so that the alerting signal approaching altitude has only a visual component; the auditory signal would continue to be heard if a deviation from an assigned altitude occurred. Failure to observe altitude alert signals and failure to reset the system were the commonest cause of altitude deviations related to this system. Cockpit crew distraction was the most frequent reason for these failures. It was noted by numerous reporters that the presence of altitude alert system made them less aware of altitude; this lack of altitude awareness is discussed. Failures of crew coordination were also noted. It is suggested that although modification of the altitude alert system may be highly desirable in short-haul aircraft, it may not be desirable for long-haul aircraft in which cockpit workloads are much lower for long periods of time. In these cockpits, the aural alert approaching altitudes is perceived as useful and helpful. If the systems are to be modified, it appears that additional emphasis on altitude awareness during recurrent training will be necessary; it is also possible that flight crew operating procedures during climb and descent may need examination with respect to monitoring responsibilities. A selection of alert bulletins and responses to them is presented.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1992

Air/ground wind shear information integration: Flight test results

An element of the NASA/FAA wind shear program is the integration of ground-based microburst information on the flight deck, to support airborne wind shear alerting and microburst avoidance. NASA conducted a wind shear flight test program in the summer of 1991 during which airborne processing of Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) data was used to derive microburst alerts. High level microburst products were extracted from TDWR, transmitted to a NASA Boeing 737 in flight via data link, and processed to estimate the wind shear hazard level (F-factor) that would be experienced by the aircraft in the core of each microburst. The microburst location and F-factor were used to derive a situation display and alerts. The situation display was successfully used to maneuver the aircraft for microburst penetrations, during which in situ 'truth' measurements were made. A total of 19 penetrations were made of TDWR-reported microburst locations, resulting in 18 airborne microburst alerts from the TDWR data and two microburst alerts from the airborne in situ measurements. The primary factors affecting alerting performance were spatial offset of the flight path from the region of strongest shear, differences in TDWR measurement altitude and airplane penetration altitude, and variations in microburst outflow profiles. Predicted and measured F-factors agreed well in penetrations near microburst cores. Although improvements in airborne and ground processing of the TDWR measurement would be required to support an airborne executive-level alerting protocol, the feasibility of airborne utilization of TDWR data link data has been demonstrated.

Hinton, David A.↗

NASA NTRS2012

Initial Evaluation of a Conflict Detection Tool in the Terminal Area

Despite the recent economic recession and its adverse impact on air travel, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) continues to forecast an increase in air traffic demand that may see traffic double or triple by the year 2025. Increases in air traffic will burden the air traffic management system, and higher levels of safety and efficiency will be required. The air traffic controllers primary task is to ensure separation between aircraft in their airspace and keep the skies safe. As air traffic is forecasted to increase in volume and complexity [1], there is an increased likelihood of conflicts between aircraft, which adds risk and inefficiency to air traffic management and increases controller workload. To attenuate these factors, recent ATM research has shown that air and ground-based automation tools could reduce controller workload, especially if the automation is focused on conflict detection and resolution. Conflict Alert is a short time horizon conflict detection tool deployed in the Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON), which has limited utility due to the high number of false alerts generated and its use of dead reckoning to predict loss of separation between aircraft. Terminal Tactical Separation Assurance Flight Environment (T-TSAFE) is a short time horizon conflict detection tool that uses both flight intent and dead reckoning to detect conflicts. Results of a fast time simulation experiment indicated that TTSAFE provided a more effective alert lead-time and generated less false alerts than Conflict Alert [2]. TSAFE was previously tested in a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) simulation study that focused on the en route phase of flight [3]. The current study tested the T-TSAFE tool in an HITL simulation study, focusing on the terminal environment with current day operations. The study identified procedures, roles, responsibilities, information requirements and usability, with the help of TRACON controllers who participated in the experiment. Metrics such as lead alert time, alert response time, workload, situation awareness and other measures were statistically analyzed. These metrics were examined from an overall perspective and comparisons between conditions (altitude resolutions via keyboard entry vs. ADS-B entry) and controller positions (two final approach sectors and two feeder sectors) were also examined. Results of these analyses and controller feedback provided evidence of T-TSAFE s potential promise as a useful air traffic controller tool. Heuristic analysis also provided information on ways in which the T-TSAFE tool can be improved. Details of analyses results will be presented in the full paper.

Verma Savita Arora↗

NASA NTRS2011

Terminal - Tactical Separation Assured Flight Environment (T-TSafe)

The Tactical Separation Assured Flight Environment (TSAFE) has been previously tested as a conflict detection and resolution tool in the en-route phase of flight. Fast time simulations of a terminal version of this tool called Terminal TSAFE (T-TSAFE) have shown promise over the current conflict detection tools. It has shown to have fewer false alerts (as low as 2 per hour) and better prediction to conflict time than Conflict Alert. The tool will be tested in the simulated terminal area of Los Angeles International Airport, in a Human-in-the-loop experiment to identify controller procedures and information requirements. The simulation will include comparisons of T-TSAFE with NASA's version of Conflict Alert. Also, some other variables such as altitude entry by the controller, which improve T-TSAFE's predictions for conflict detection, will be tested. T-TSAFE integrates features of current conflict detection tools such as Automated Terminal Proximity Alert used to alleviate compression errors in the final approach phase. Based on fast-time simulation analysis, the anticipated benefits of T-TSAFE over Conflict Alert include reduced false/missed alerts and increased time to predicted loss of separation. Other metrics that will be used to evaluate the tool's impact on the controller include controller intervention, workload, and situation awareness.

Verma, Savita Arora↗

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 NTRS2016

FT4 Data Analysis Summary (SSI-ARC)

Standards for Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Detect-and-Avoid (DAA) systems are currently being developed under the auspices of the RTCA Special Committee 228 (SC-228). To support the development of these standards, a series of flight tests has been conducted at NASAs Armstrong Flight Research Center (NASA-AFRC). The fourth in this series of flight test activities (Flight Test 4, or simply FT4) was conducted during the Spring and Summer of 2016. FT4 supported the objectives of numerous organizations working toward UAS DAA Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) and UAS DAA Radar MOPS. The summary provided herein is limited to the objectives, analysis and conclusions of the NASA Ames Research Center (NASA-ARC) SSI team toward the refinement of UAS DAA MOPS. This document provides a high-level overview of FT4 and the SSI-ARC objectives, a summary of the data analysis methodology and recommendations for UAS DAA MOPS refinements based on the data analysis results. A total of 72 encounters were flown to support SSI-ARC objectives. Test results were generally consistent with acceptable UAS DAA system performance and will be considered in broader SC-228 requirements validation efforts. Observed alert lead times indicated acceptable UAS DAA alerting performance. Effective interoperability between the UAS DAA system and the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) was observed with one notable exception: TCAS Resolutions Advisories (RA) were observed in the absence of any DAA alert on two occasions, indicating the need for alert parameter refinement. Findings further indicated the need for continued work in the areas of DAA Well Clear Recovery logic and alert stability for Mode-C-only intruders. Finally, results demonstrated a high level of compliance with a set of evaluation criteria designed to provide anecdotal evidence of acceptable UAS DAA system performance.

UAS Test Flight↗

NASA NTRS2018

Comparative Analysis of ACAS-Xu and DAIDALUS Detect-and-Avoid Systems

The Detect and Avoid (DAA) capability of a recent version (Run 3) of the Airborne Collision Avoidance System-Xu (ACAS-Xu) is measured against that of the Detect and AvoID Alerting Logic for Unmanned Systems (DAIDALUS), a reference algorithm for the Phase 1 Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for DAA. This comparative analysis of the two systems' alerting and horizontal guidance outcomes is conducted through the lens of the Detect and Avoid mission using flight data of scripted encounters from a recent flight test. Results indicate comparable timelines and outcomes between ACAS-Xu's Remain Well Clear alert and guidance and DAIDALUS's corrective alert and guidance, although ACAS-Xu's guidance appears to be more conservative. ACAS-Xu's Collision Avoidance alert and guidance occurs later than DAIDALUS's warning alert and guidance, and overlaps with DAIDALUS's timeline of maneuver to remain Well Clear. Interesting discrepancies between ACAS-Xu's directive guidance and DAIDALUS's "Regain Well Clear" guidance occur in some scenarios.

Davies, Jason T.↗