Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Alerting Logic”

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.

43 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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

As part of the Phase 2 UAS DAA MOPS, a Class 3 DAA system has been under development with the potential to resolve many of the limitations of Class 1 and 2 systems. A Class 3 system would combine the DAA and CA functions into a single, unified system, and would also extend the CA capabilities relative to TCAS II. Class 3 is enabled by the Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) XU, a next generation CA system developed specifically for UAS operations. Unlike Class 2 systems, ACAS XU provides CA protection against both cooperative and non-cooperative traffic. Class 3 systems also expand the CA logic to allow horizontal RAs in addition to vertical RAs. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate ACAS XU in a real-time, HITL simulation. The latest version of ACAS XU was implemented and pilots were tasked with responding to scripted traffic conflicts over the course of four experimental trials. Variables included the location of the ACAS XU guidance information (standalone vs. integrated) and traffic conflict type (DAA or CA threat). Sixteen active UAS pilots participated in the study, with ATC and ‘pseudo’ pilots acting as airspace confederates. Results showed that pilots were able to maintain DWC with ACAS XU at a rate comparable to previous research (~5%). Compliance rates to initial RAs were high (~90%) but dropped significantly when the target heading value issued during horizontal RAs were updated over the course of an encounter (30-70%). The implications of these findings on the display, alerting, and guidance requirements for Class 3 systems will be discussed.

unmanned aircraft systems↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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

As part of the Phase 2 UAS DAA MOPS, a Class 3 DAA system has been under development with the potential to resolve many of the limitations of Class 1 and 2 systems. A Class 3 system would combine the DAA and CA functions into a single, unified system, and would also extend the CA capabilities relative to TCAS II. Class 3 is enabled by the Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) XU, a next generation CA system developed specifically for UAS operations. Unlike Class 2 systems, ACAS XU provides CA protection against both cooperative and non-cooperative traffic. Class 3 systems also expand the CA logic to allow horizontal RAs in addition to vertical RAs. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate ACAS XU in a real-time, HITL simulation. The latest version of ACAS XU was implemented and pilots were tasked with responding to scripted traffic conflicts over the course of four experimental trials. Variables included the location of the ACAS XU guidance information (standalone vs. integrated) and traffic conflict type (DAA or CA threat). Sixteen active UAS pilots participated in the study, with ATC and ‘pseudo’ pilots acting as airspace confederates. Results showed that pilots were able to maintain DWC with ACAS XU at a rate comparable to previous research (~5%). Compliance rates to initial RAs were high (~90%) but dropped significantly when the target heading value issued during horizontal RAs were updated over the course of an encounter (30-70%). The implications of these findings on the display, alerting, and guidance requirements for Class 3 systems will be discussed.

unmanned aircraft systems↗
NASA NTRS2020

A Human-in-theLoop Evaluation of ACAS Xu

As part of the Phase 2 UAS DAA MOPS, a Class 3 DAA system has been under development with the potential to resolve many of the limitations of Class 1 and 2 systems. A Class 3 system would combine the DAA and CA functions into a single, unified system, and would also extend the CA capabilities relative to TCAS II. Class 3 is enabled by the Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) XU, a next generation CA system developed specifically for UAS operations. Unlike Class 2 systems, ACAS XU provides CA protection against both cooperative and non-cooperative traffic. Class 3 systems also expand the CA logic to allow horizontal RAs in addition to vertical RAs. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate ACAS XU in a real-time, HITL simulation. The latest version of ACAS XU was implemented and pilots were tasked with responding to scripted traffic conflicts over the course of four experimental trials. Variables included the location of the ACAS XU guidance information (standalone vs. integrated) and traffic conflict type (DAA or CA threat). Sixteen active UAS pilots participated in the study, with ATC and ‘pseudo’ pilots acting as airspace confederates. Results showed that pilots were able to maintain DWC with ACAS XU at a rate comparable to previous research (~5%). Compliance rates to initial RAs were high (~90%) but dropped significantly when the target heading value issued during horizontal RAs were updated over the course of an encounter (30-70%). The implications of these findings on the display, alerting, and guidance requirements for Class 3 systems will be discussed.

unmanned aircraft systems↗
NASA NTRS1995

Designing Flight-Deck Procedures

A complex human-machine system consists of more than merely one or more human operators and a collection of hardware components. In order to operate a complex system successfully, the human-machine system must be supported by an organizational infrastructure of operating concepts, rules, guidelines, and documents. The coherency of such operating concepts, in terms of consistency and logic, is vitally important for the efficiency and safety of any complex system. In high-risk endeavors such as aircraft operations, space flight, nuclear power production, manufacturing process control, and military operations, it is essential that such support be flawless, as the price of operational error can be high. When operating rules are not adhered to, or the rules are inadequate for the task at hand, not only will the system's goals be thwarted, but there may also be tragic human and material consequences. To ensure safe and predictable operations, support to the operators, in this case flight crews, often comes in the form of standard operating procedures. These provide the crew with step-by-step guidance for carrying out their operations. Standard procedures do indeed promote uniformity, but they do so at the risk of reducing the role of human operators to a lower level. Management, however, must recognize the danger of over-procedurization, which fails to exploit one of the most valuable assets in the system, the intelligent operator who is "on the scene." The alert system designer and operations manager recognize that there cannot be a procedure for everything, and the time will come in which the operators of a complex system will face a situation for which there is no written procedure. Procedures, whether executed by humans or machines, have their place, but so does human cognition.

Degani, Asaf↗
NASA NTRS1989

Pilots' use of a traffic alert and collision-avoidance system (TCAS 2) in simulated air carrier operations. Volume 1: Methodology, summary and conclusions

Pilots' use of and responses to a traffic alert and collision-avoidance system (TCAS 2) in simulated air carrier line operations are described in Volume 1. TCAS 2 monitors the positions of nearby aircraft by means of transponder interrogation, and it commands a climb or descent when conflicting aircraft are projected to reach an unsafe closest point-of-approach within 20 to 25 seconds. A different level of information about the location of other air traffic was presented to each of three groups of flight crews during their execution of eight simulated air carrier flights. A fourth group of pilots flew the same segments without TCAS 2 equipment. Traffic conflicts were generated at intervals during the flights; many of the conflict aircraft were visible to the flight crews. The TCAS equipment successfully ameliorated the seriousness of all conflicts; three of four non-TCAS crews had hazardous encounters. Response times to TCAS maneuver commands did not differ as a function of the amount of information provided, nor did response accuracy. Differences in flight experience did not appear to contribute to the small performance differences observed. Pilots used the displays of conflicting traffic to maneuver to avoid unseen traffic before maneuver advisories were issued by the TCAS equipment. The results indicate: (1) that pilots utilize TCAS effectively within the response times allocated by the TCAS logic, and (2) that TCAS 2 is an effective collision avoidance device. Volume II contains the appendices referenced in Volume I, providing details of the experiment and the results, and the text of two reports written in support of the program.

Chappell, Sheryl L.↗
NASA NTRS1989

Pilots' use of a traffic alert and collision-avoidance system (TCAS 2) in simulated air carrier operations. Volume 2: Appendices

Pilots' use of and responses to a traffic alert and collision-avoidance system (TCAS 2) in simulated air carrier line operations are discribed in Volume 1. TCAS 2 monitors the positions of nearby aircraft by means of transponder interrogation, and it commands a climb or descent which conflicting aircraft are projected to reach an unsafe closest point-of-approach within 20 to 25 seconds. A different level of information about the location of other air traffic was presented to each of three groups of flight crews during their execution of eight simulated air carrier flights. A fourth group of pilots flew the same segments without TCAS 2 equipment. Traffic conflicts were generated at intervals during the flights; many of the conflict aircraft were visible to the flight crews. The TCAS equipment successfully ameliorated the seriousness of all conflicts; three of four non-TCAS crews had hazardous encounters. Response times to TCAS maneuver commands did not differ as a function of the amount of information provided, nor did response accuracy. Differences in flight experience did not appear to contribute to the small performance differences observed. Pilots used the displays of conflicting traffic to maneuver to avoid unseen traffic before maneuver advisories were issued by the TCAS equipment. The results indicate: (1) that pilots utilize TCAS effectively within the response times allocated by the TCAS logic, and (2) that TCAS 2 is an effective collision avoidance device. Volume 2 contains the appendices referenced in Volume 1, providing details of the experiment and the results, and the text of two reports written in support of the program.

Chappell, Sheryl L.↗
NASA NTRS2015

T-38 Primary Flight Display Prototyping and HIVE Support Abstract & Summary

This fall I worked in EV3 within NASA's Johnson Space Center in The HIVE (Human Integrated Vehicles & Environments). The HIVE is responsible for human in the loop testing, getting new technologies in front of astronauts, operators, and users early in the development cycle to make the interfaces more human friendly. Some projects the HIVE is working on includes user interfaces for future spacecraft, wearables to alert astronauts about important information, and test beds to simulate mock missions. During my internship I created a prototype for T-38 aircraft displays using LabVIEW, learned how to use microcontrollers, and helped out with other small tasks in the HIVE. The purpose of developing a prototype for T-38 Displays in LabVIEW is to analyze functions of the display such as navigation in a cost and time effective manner. The LabVIEW prototypes allow Ellington Field AOD to easily make adjustments to the display before hardcoding the final product. LabVIEW was used to create a user interface for simulation almost identical to the real aircraft display. Goals to begin the T-38 PFD (Primary Flight Display) prototype included creating a T-38 PFD hardware display in a software environment, designing navigation for the menu's, incorporating vertical and horizontal navigation bars, and to add a heading bug for compass controls connected to the HSI (Horizontal Situation Indicator). To get started with the project, measurements of the entire display were taken. This enabled an accurate model of the hardware display to be created. Navigation of menu's required some exploration of different buttons on the display. The T-38 simulator and aircraft were used for examining the display. After one piece of the prototype was finished, another trip of to the simulator took place. This was done until all goals for the prototype were complete. Some possible integration ideas for displays in the near future are autopilot selection, touch screen displays, and crew member preferences. Complete navigation, control, and function customization will be achievable once a display is fully developed. Other than the T-38 prototyping, I spent time learning how to design small circuits and write code for them to function. This was done by adding electronic circuit components to breadboard and microcontroller then writing code to speak to those components through the microcontroller. I went through an Arduino starter kit to build circuits and code software that allowed the hardware to act. This work was planned to assist in a lighting project this fall but another solution was discovered for the lighting project. Other tasks that I assisted with, included hands on work such as mock-up construction/removal, logic analyzer repairs, and soldering with circuits. The unique opportunity to be involved work with NASA has significantly changed my educational and career goals. This opportunity has only opened the door to my career with engineering. I have learned over the span of this internship that I am fascinated by the type of work that NASA does. My desire to work in the aerospace industry has increased immensely. I hope to return to NASA to be more involved in the advancement of science, engineering, and spaceflight. My interests for my future education and career lie in NASA’s work - pioneering the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.

Boniface, Andrew↗