Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “minimum operational performance standards”

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 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2018

Ground Based Detect and Avoid

This presentation documents the results of an industry survey performed to help inform future research and requirements development regarding ground-based detect and avoid (GBDAA) systems. The author evaluated and summarized the current-state of existing GBDAA systems with a focus on system capabilities, current use cases, and concepts of operations. The survey included vendors such as Echodyne, Seamatica, and Raytheon, government organizations, including the Air Force and FAA, as well as members from the FAA's UAS Test Sites in New York, Alaska, Nevada, Virginia and North Dakota. High-level findings are provided as well as quotes from individuals involved in building and testing GBDAA systems. Conclusions include a lack of coordination between test sites, manufacturers and standards organizations. There is also a wide range of performance capabilities between test sites and systems. More work is required to define minimum operational performance standards for these systems, which are in a relatively immature state at the moment.

ground-based radar↗
NASA NTRS2019

Detect-and-Avoid Alerting Performance for High-Speed UAS and Non-Cooperative Aircraft

This paper presents a set of experiments designed to assess the viability of using a smaller Detect and Avoid (DAA) volume for large Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) when they are trying to remain well clear of non-cooperative visual flight rules (VFR) aircraft, in compliance with Federal regulations. The current DAA volume was defined for both cooperative and non-cooperative VFR traffic by the work of RTCA Special Committee 228 in 2017, in what is referred to in this paper as the Phase 1 standards. Subsequent work by the committee has been focused on enabling operations by smaller UAS that cannot carry the heavy radars required for the Phase 1 DAA Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS). The work discussed in this paper will explore whether a Phase 1 UAS using a Phase 1 radar can use the reduced non-cooperative DAA alerting volume being studied for smaller, slower Phase 2 UAS without significantly degrading system safety. The study uses UAS models and background traffic from previous Phase 1 and Phase 2 research to run an unmitigated simulation that will examine alerting performance using different DAA well clear definitions. The primary metrics are also tied to the alerting performance of the DAA system, and include average alerting times, probabilities of missed and late alerts, and the probability of a near mid-air collision given a loss of "well clear," as defined by the DAA system. Results are expected to help RTCA make the determination whether or not the DAA well clear definition for Phase 1 UAS can be reduced for non-cooperative VFR aircraft.

Cone, Andrew C.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Detect-and-Avoid Alerting Performance for High-Speed UAS and Non-Cooperative Aircraft

This paper presents a set of experiments designed to assess the viability of using a smaller Detect and Avoid (DAA) volume for large Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) when they are trying to remain well clear of non-cooperative visual flight rules (VFR) aircraft, in compliance with Federal regulations. The current DAA volume was defined for both cooperative and non-cooperative VFR traffic by the work of RTCA (Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) Special Committee 228 in 2017, in what is referred to in this paper as the Phase 1 standards. Subsequent work by the committee has been focused on enabling operations by smaller UAS that cannot carry the heavy radars required for the Phase 1 DAA Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS). The work discussed in this paper will explore whether a Phase 1 UAS using a Phase 1 radar can use the reduced non-cooperative DAA alerting volume being studied for smaller, slower Phase 2 UAS without significantly degrading system safety. The study uses UAS models and background traffic from previous Phase 1 and Phase 2 research to run an unmitigated simulation that will examine alerting performance using different DAA well clear definitions. The primary metrics are also tied to the alerting performance of the DAA system, and include average alerting times, probabilities of missed and late alerts, and the probability of a near mid-air collision given a loss of "well clear," as defined by the DAA system. Results are expected to help RTCA make the determination whether or not the DAA well clear definition for Phase 1 UAS can be reduced for non-cooperative VFR aircraft.

UAS↗
NASA NTRS2016

ACES M and S: Unmitigated Factorial Encounter Study on DAA/TCAS Interoperability

Realization of the expected proliferation of Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations in the National Airspace System (NAS) depends on the development and validation of standards for UAS Detect and Avoid (DAA) Systems. The RTCA Special Committee 228 is charged with leading the development of draft Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for UAS DAA Systems. NASA, as a participating member of RTCA SC-228 is committed to supporting the development and validation of draft requirements for DAA alerting and guidance systems. This presentation contains the results of two combinatorial encounter analysis studies using NASA's SAA Control fast-time simulation capability for this purpose. In these studies, encounters between two aircraft were simulated one at a time for the full factorial combination of encounter geometries (e.g., encounter angle, CPA offset) and aircraft performance (e.g., ownership and intruder ground speeds and vertical rates). The first study analyzes the relationships (e.g., timeline) between the different alerting-safety regions in the SC-228 MOPS (in order of increasing severity): 1) DAA warning alert, 2) well clear recovery (WCR) guidance, 3) DAA-Collision Avoidance (CA), and 4) TCAS RA. This study will focus primarily on encounter situations in which TCAS RA occurs prior to any of the other alerting-safety boundaries. In particular, this study will investigate whether using vertical distance or vertical distance at closest point of approach (i.e., vertical miss distance or VMD) is more appropriate for the definition of the DAA-CA region. In addition, cases where transitions between different regions skip an intermediate region will be analyzed. The second study in this presentation explores a proposal to use an altitude rate error threshold to determine if vertical maneuvers are acceptable for DAA WCR guidance against non-cooperative intruders. This study incorporates the radar from the Honeywell sensor model and examines a series of pairwise encounters between a non-cooperative intruder and a UAS ownship, with different combinations of intruder states and ownship performance levels. The study uses SAA Control as a simulation platform and pilot model, and Omnibands to provide DWC recovery guidance. Two simulation sets, one that allows vertical DWC recovery guidance and one that does not, are compared to determine if encounters with altitude rate errors above 250 feet-per-minute are more likely to have more severe losses of well clear, as determined by the Loss of Well-Clear Severity metric.

SaaControl↗
NASA NTRS2017

Progress on the Development of the UAS C2 Link and Supporting Spectrum - from LOS to BLOS

In order to provide for the safe integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System, the control and non-payload communications (CNPC) link connecting the ground-based pilot with the unmanned aircraft must be highly reliable and robust, based upon standards that enable certification. Both line-of-sight (LOS) links using terrestrial-based communications and beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS) links using satellite communications are required to support UAS operations. The development of standards has been undertaken by RTCA Special Committee 228 (SC-228), with supporting technical data developed by NASA under the UAS in the National Airspace (NAS) Project. As a result of this work minimum operational performance standards (MOPS) have been completed and published for the LOS CNPC system. The second phase of work, for both NASA and RTCA involves the BLOS CNPC systems. The development of technical data to support MOPS development for UAS BLOS satellite-based CNPC links has now been initiated by NASA, and RTCA SC-228 has organized itself to begin the MOPS development process. This paper will provide an overview of the work that has been completed to date by the Communications Subproject in support of LOS C2 communications for UAS followed by an update of plans and progress for the BLOS phase of the project, with the focus on the UAS C2 spectrum aspects.

Pilotless aircraft↗
NASA NTRS2021

Detect-and-Avoid Surveillance Range Requirements for Electro-Optical/Infra-Red Sensors

A detect-and-avoid (DAA) system provides surveillance, alerting, and maneuver guidance (referred to as guidance in this report) that are critical to an unmanned aircraft system’s (UAS) ability to maintain separation from manned aircraft and other unmanned aircraft. The last decade has seen significant progress in the development of DAA requirements, spearheaded by RTCA Special Committee 228 (SC228) and subsequently by other standards organizations such as EUROCAE and ASTM. SC-228’s development of DAA requirements assumes the UAS follows instrument flight rules (IFR) and has a remote pilot or operator in the loop. As of the publication of this document, the SC-228’s latest Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for DAA, versioned as DO-365B [1], DAA systems use onboard and/or ground surveillance systems to detect traffic. The surveillance systems must detect both cooperative and non-cooperative air traffic. Cooperative traffic are vehicles that have a broadcasting transponder, while non-cooperative traffic do not, and so must be detected via radar or other sensors. A DAA system’s alerting and guidance functions alert the pilot/operator in the loop of potential hazards, such as intruder aircraft, and provide maneuver solutions which help the pilot/operator avoid or mitigate observed hazards. A UAS pilot is expected to coordinate with air traffic control (ATC) before executing a conflict avoidance maneuver if the type of alert is not urgent enough to require an immediate maneuver.

uncrewed aviation systems↗
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 NTRS2017

UAS Well Clear Recovery Against Non-Cooperative Intruders Using Vertical Maneuvers

This paper documents a study that drove the development of a mathematical expression in the minimum operational performance standards (MOPS) of detect-and-avoid (DAA) systems for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). This equation describes the conditions under which vertical maneuver guidance could be provided during recovery of well clear separation with a non-cooperative VFR aircraft in addition to horizontal maneuver guidance. Although suppressing vertical maneuver guidance in these situations increased the minimum horizontal separation from 500 to 800 feet, the maximum severity of loss of well clear increased in about 35 of the encounters compared to when a vertical maneuver was preferred and allowed. Additionally, analysis of individual cases led to the identification of a class of encounter where vertical rate error had a large effect on horizontal maneuvers due to the difficulty of making the correct left-right turn decision: crossing conflict with intruder changing altitude. These results supported allowing vertical maneuvers when UAS vertical performance exceeds the relative vertical position and velocity accuracy of the DAA tracker given the current velocity of the UAS and the relative vertical position and velocity estimated by the DAA tracker. Looking ahead, these results indicate a need to improve guidance algorithms by utilizing maneuver stability and near mid-air collision risk when determining maneuver guidance to regain well clear separation.

detect and avoid↗
NASA NTRS2020

Detect-and-Avoid: Flight Test 6 Scripted Encounters Data Analysis

The Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) project conducted Flight Test 6 (FT6) in 2019. The ultimate goal of this flight test was to produce data to inform RTCA SC-228's Phase II Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for Detect and Avoid (DAA) and Low Size, Weight, and Power Sensors. This report documents the analysis of scripted encounters' data. Scripted encounters own were analyzed and categorized based on the outcome of alert, maneuver guidance, and effectiveness of pilots' maneuver in resolving conflicts. Results indicate that UAS pilots' decisions as well as intruder maneuvers are leading factors that contribute to ineffective DAA maneuvers. Results also show that adding buffers to the DAA's suggested minimum turn angle improves effectiveness of the DAA maneuvers.

Wang, Wei-Ching↗
NASA NTRS2016

A Cognitive Systems Engineering Approach to Developing HMI Requirements for New Technologies

This document examines the challenges inherent in designing and regulating to support human-automation interaction for new technologies that will deployed into complex systems. A key question for new technologies, is how work will be accomplished by the human and machine agents. This question has traditionally been framed as how functions should be allocated between humans and machines. Such framing misses the coordination and synchronization that is needed for the different human and machine roles in the system to accomplish their goals. Coordination and synchronization demands are driven by the underlying human-automation architecture of the new technology, which are typically not specified explicitly by the designers. The human machine interface (HMI) which is intended to facilitate human-machine interaction and cooperation, however, typically is defined explicitly and therefore serves as a proxy for human-automation cooperation requirements with respect to technical standards for technologies. Unfortunately, mismatches between the HMI and the coordination and synchronization demands of the underlying human-automation architecture, can lead to system breakdowns. A methodology is needed that both designers and regulators can utilize to evaluate the expected performance of a new technology given potential human-automation architectures. Three experiments were conducted to inform the minimum HMI requirements a detect and avoid system for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). The results of the experiments provided empirical input to specific minimum operational performance standards that UAS manufacturers will have to meet in order to operate UAS in the National Airspace System (NAS). These studies represent a success story for how to objectively and systematically evaluate prototype technologies as part of the process for developing regulatory requirements. They also provide an opportunity to reflect on the lessons learned from a recent research effort in order to improve the methodology for defining technology requirements for regulators in the future. The biggest shortcoming of the presented research program was the absence of the explicit definition, generation and analysis of potential human-automation architectures. Failure to execute this step in the research process resulted in less efficient evaluation of the candidate prototypes technologies in addition to the complete absence of different approaches to human-automation cooperation. For example, all of the prototype technologies that were evaluated in the research program assumed a human-automation architecture that relied on serial processing from the automation to the human. While this type of human-automation architecture is typical across many different technologies and in many different domains, it ignores different architectures where humans and automation work in parallel. Defining potential human-automation architectures a priori also allows regulators to develop scenarios that will stress the performance boundaries of the technology during the evaluation phase. The importance of adding this step of generating and evaluating candidate human-automation architectures prior to formal empirical evaluation is discussed.

human systems integration↗
NASA NTRS2015

Characteristics of a Well Clear Definition and Alerting Criteria for Encounters Between UAS and Manned Aircraft in Class E Airspace

Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) will be required to equip with a detect-and-avoid (DAA) system in order to satisfy the federal aviation regulations to remain well clear of other aircraft. For a DAA system to satisfy the requirement to stay well clear of other airborne traffic, a quantitative definition of well clear needs to be defined and evaluated. This study investigates the implications of UAS using proposed well clear definitions as a separation standard for conducting operations in the National Airspace System (NAS). The first analysis considers three well clear definitions and presents the relative state conditions of intruder aircraft as they encroach upon the well clear boundary. The second analysis focuses on the definition of the alerting criteria needed to inform the UAS operator of a potential loss of well clear. All analyses are conducted in a NAS-wide fast-time simulation environment using UAS aircraft models, proposed UAS missions, and historical air defense radar data to populate the background traffic operating under visual flight rules. The results presented in this study inform the safety case, requirements development, and the operational environment for DAA minimum operational performance standards.

Safety↗
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 NTRS2017

UAS Well Clear Recovery Against Non-Cooperative Intruders Using Vertical Maneuvers

This paper documents a study that drove the development of a mathematical expression in the detect-and-avoid (DAA) minimum operational performance standards (MOPS) for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). This equation describes the conditions under which vertical maneuver guidance should be provided during recovery of DAA well clear separation with a non-cooperative VFR aircraft. Although the original hypothesis was that vertical maneuvers for DAA well clear recovery should only be offered when sensor vertical rate errors are small, this paper suggests that UAS climb and descent performance should be considered-in addition to sensor errors for vertical position and vertical rate-when determining whether to offer vertical guidance. A fast-time simulation study involving 108,000 encounters between a UAS and a non-cooperative visual-flight-rules aircraft was conducted. Results are presented showing that, when vertical maneuver guidance for DAA well clear recovery was suppressed, the minimum vertical separation increased by roughly 50 feet (or horizontal separation by 500 to 800 feet). However, the percentage of encounters that had a risk of collision when performing vertical well clear recovery maneuvers was reduced as UAS vertical rate performance increased and sensor vertical rate errors decreased. A class of encounter is identified for which vertical-rate error had a large effect on the efficacy of horizontal maneuvers due to the difficulty of making the correct left/right turn decision: crossing conflict with intruder changing altitude. Overall, these results support logic that would allow vertical maneuvers when UAS vertical performance is sufficient to avoid the intruder, based on the intruder's estimated vertical position and vertical rate, as well as the vertical rate error of the UAS' sensor.

UAS in the NAS↗
NASA NTRS2014

Investigating the Impacts of a Separation Standard for UAS Operations in Enroute and Transition Airspace

Unmanned aircraft systems will be required to equip with a detect and avoid system in order to satisfy the federal aviation regulations to remain well clear of other aircraft. To comply with regulations in today’s operations manned aircraft must “see and avoid” other aircraft and use subjective judgment to determine whether those aircraft are well clear. For a detect-and- avoid (DAA) system to satisfy the requirement to stay well clear, a quantitative definition of well clear needs to be defined and evaluated. Definitions for the boundary of well clear have been proposed by the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Executive Committee Science and Research Panel (SaRP) and the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) Special Committee 228 on Detect and Avoid Systems. This study investigates the interoperability implications of UAS using proposed well clear definitions as a separation standard for conducting operations in the national airspace system. The first analysis in the study focuses on the effect of variations in well clear definition parameters on the rate of losses of well clear per flight hour. The second analysis considers three well clear definitions and presents the relative state conditions of intruder aircraft as they encroach upon the well clear boundary. The third analysis focuses on the definition of the alerting criteria needed to inform the UAS operator of a potential loss of well clear. All three analyses are conducted in a NAS-wide fast-time simulation environment using UAS aircraft models, proposed UAS missions, and historical air defense radar data to populate the background traffic operating under visual flight rules. The results from the three analyses presented in this study inform the safety case, requirements development, and the operational environment for the DAA minimum operational performance standards.

UAS Seperation Standard↗
NASA NTRS2015

An Evaluation of Detect and Avoid (DAA) Displays for Unmanned Aircraft Systems: The Effect of Information Level and Display Location on Pilot Performance

A consortium of government, industry and academia is currently working to establish minimum operational performance standards for Detect and Avoid (DAA) and Control and Communications (C2) systems in order to enable broader integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS). One subset of these performance standards will need to address the DAA display requirements that support an acceptable level of pilot performance. From a pilot's perspective, the DAA task is the maintenance of self separation and collision avoidance from other aircraft, utilizing the available information and controls within the Ground Control Station (GCS), including the DAA display. The pilot-in-the-loop DAA task requires the pilot to carry out three major functions: 1) detect a potential threat, 2) determine an appropriate resolution maneuver, and 3) execute that resolution maneuver via the GCS control and navigation interface(s). The purpose of the present study was to examine two main questions with respect to DAA display considerations that could impact pilots' ability to maintain well clear from other aircraft. First, what is the effect of a minimum (or basic) information display compared to an advanced information display on pilot performance? Second, what is the effect of display location on UAS pilot performance? Two levels of information level (basic, advanced) were compared across two levels of display location (standalone, integrated), for a total of four displays. The authors propose an eight-stage pilot-DAA interaction timeline from which several pilot response time metrics can be extracted. These metrics were compared across the four display conditions. The results indicate that the advanced displays had faster overall response times compared to the basic displays, however, there were no significant differences between the standalone and integrated displays. Implications of the findings on understanding pilot performance on the DAA task, the development of DAA display performance standards, as well as the need for future research are discussed.

detect and avoid↗
NASA NTRS2011

Surveillance Range and Interference Impacts on Self-Separation Performance

Self-separation is a concept of flight operations that aims to provide user benefits and increase airspace capacity by transferring traffic separation responsibility from ground-based controllers to the flight crew. Self-separation is enabled by cooperative airborne surveillance, such as that provided by the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADSB) system and airborne separation assistance technologies. This paper describes an assessment of the impact of ADS-B system performance on the performance of self-separation as a step towards establishing far-term ADS-B performance requirements. Specifically, the impacts of ADS-B surveillance range and interference limitations were analyzed under different traffic density levels. The analysis was performed using a batch simulation of aircraft performing self-separation assisted by NASA s Autonomous Operations Planner prototype flight-deck tool, in two-dimensional airspace. An aircraft detected conflicts within a look-ahead time of ten minutes and resolved them using strategic closed trajectories or tactical open maneuvers if the time to loss of separation was below a threshold. While a complex interaction was observed between the impacts of surveillance range and interference, as both factors are physically coupled, self-separation performance followed expected trends. An increase in surveillance range resulted in a decrease in the number of conflict detections, an increase in the average conflict detection lead time, and an increase in the percentage of conflict resolutions that were strategic. The majority of the benefit was observed when surveillance range was increased to a value corresponding to the conflict detection look-ahead time. The benefits were attenuated at higher interference levels. Increase in traffic density resulted in a significant increase in the number of conflict detections, as expected, but had no effect on the conflict detection lead time and the percentage of conflict resolutions that were strategic. With surveillance range corresponding to ADS-B minimum operational performance standards for Class A3 equipment and without background interference, a significant portion of conflict resolutions, 97 percent, were achieved in the preferred strategic mode. The majority of conflict resolutions, 71 percent, were strategic even with very high interference (over three times that expected in 2035).

Idris, Husni↗