SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “HITL”

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 73 records · Page 4

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2017

Accounting for the Speed-Accuracy Trade-Off in Quantifying Human-In-The-Loop Error Probabilities

Human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulations cannot collect enough data from human operators to validate estimates of error probabilities for task components. Error rates for tasks have been estimated by using laboratory data for error rates depending on variables such as the cognitive complexity of the task. The limited channel capacity of human operators compels error rates to be strongly related to the time available for the task, the speed-accuracy trade-off. HITL simulations can provide valuable data on the time available for the operator's tasks. We propose that the response times be used in conjunction with measured speed-accuracy curves to estimate the operator error rates contributing to mission failure. Such analyses should be especially important in the estimation of error rates in off-nominal situations.

probability↗

NASA NTRS2017

Implementation of Real-Time Hardware in the Loop Simulation for WAVE Instrument Avionics

The Regolith and Environment Science and Oxygen and Lunar Volatile Extraction (RESOLVE) payload will lead the Resource Prospector rover to hydrogen-rich locations on the moon supporting NASA's in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) mission. The Water Analysis and Volatile Extraction (WAVE) system will be responsible for heating up regolith samples and analyzing their volatiles in a vaporized state. Given the space environment, testing flight hardware and software using the scientific instruments can be costly and time consuming, which can hold back progress involving the instruments. A hardware-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation will test the Avionics Data Acquisition as well as the Instrument Interface Unit, through simulating sensors and actuators involved in supporting the WAVE instruments. HITL is a platform for testing and developing WAVE's avionics and software, where the simulation plant will imitate the LAVA and OVEN instruments, thus allowing for an accessible, efficient, and replicable testing environment.

Al Qaraghuli, Ali↗

NASA NTRS2016

Reducing Departure Delays for Adjacent Center Airports using Time-Based Flow Management Scheduler: Checkbox On or Off?

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has enhanced the Time-Based Flow Management (TBFM) scheduling tool with a "Checkbox ON" vs. "OFF" function which allows Traffic Management Coordinators (TMCs) to make room in a crowded arrival stream for a departure. When scheduling a departure, having the checkbox ON can delay the Scheduled Times of Arrivals (STAs) of the airborne flights upstream of the TBFM freeze horizons and can compress these flights to their minimum required spacing, thereby creating a slot for a departure. Hence, having the checkbox ON can reduce the frequent ground delays of aircraft departing near high volume airports but can increase delays for airborne arrivals. A Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) simulation compared arrival and departure delays to Newark Airport (EWR) with the checkbox ON vs. OFF as the default position. Three other conditions in this HITL involved various National Airspace System (NAS)-wide approaches for timely delivery of aircraft to the TBFM region. These conditions were: Baseline, using current Mile-in-Trail (MIT) spacing restrictions; Integrated Demand Management (IDM), where all aircraft were given departure times (Expect Departure Clearance Times, or EDCTs), ultimately based on the EWR Airport Arrival Rate; and IDM plus Required Time of Arrival (RTA), a flight deck tool which allowed some aircraft to meet a controlled time of arrival to the TBFM area more precisely. Results showed that the checkbox tool was powerful: with the checkbox ON, departure delays decreased and airborne delays increased, as predicted. However, assuming that the cost ratio of a minute of airborne delay to a minute of departure delay is in the range of 1.2 to 3, as commonly indicated by the literature, checkbox ON and checkbox OFF conditions showed approximately equal total delay costs, i.e., the cost of delays in the air balanced the cost of the delay on the ground. The three scheduling conditions also had approximately equal total delay costs, although a simulation artifact may have reduced the delays in the Baseline condition. In the debrief following the simulation, the TMCs concluded that the checkbox should be used flexibly depending on the current delay situation, and suggested modifications to the checkbox tool which would help them use it in this way, along with enhanced training. The relatively similar total cost of both checkbox default options in this simulation indicates that this might be a fruitful approach, and replace the necessity to have the checkbox rigidly set to either ON or OFF.

departure delay↗

NASA NTRS2018

Evaluation of Usability and Workload Associated with Paper Strips as Compared to Virtual Flight Strips Used for Ramp Operations

This paper describes a study comparing the use of paper strips with virtual flight strips depicted on a new user interface, the Ramp Traffic Console (RTC), designed for use by ramp controllers to be used in place of paper strips. A Human-In-the-Loop (HITL) experiment was performed as the fifth in a series of six HITL simulation studies designed to evaluate a pushback Decision Support Tool (DST) concept for Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT). Workload and usability were assessed in post-run and post-study questionnaires. In the RTC virtual flight strip condition, post-run questionnaire results show lower workload ratings across all aspects of workload; additionally a trend is found toward increased usability ratings. Post-study questionnaire results indicate a preference for RTC over paper strips. Additional research is suggested with more training runs and a greater number of participants to increase statistical power. It is also suggested that this new technology be re-evaluated as a part of the ATD-2 (Airspace Technology Demonstration 2) field testing activities.

Human Factors↗

NASA NTRS2018

Multi UAS Demo System Example Video

This presentation covers the primary results from a recently completed human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation conducted as part of the UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) integration into the NAS (National Airspace System) project. The HITL examined the impact of multiple (simultaneous) UAS control while performing a demanding mission task and managing scripted conflicts. The scripted conflicts were designed to trigger the detect-and-avoid (DAA) system. This was the first time the DAA system as designed as part of the UAS-NAS project has been applied to multi-UAS control. The second part of the presentation briefly summarizes the takeaways from two workshops held on human-automation interaction considerations for UAS integration. NASA co-hosted and participated in both workshops.

Rorie, Robert C.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Validation of Minimum Display Requirements for a UAS Detect and Avoid System

The full integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS), a prerequisite for enabling a broad range of public and commercial UAS operations, presents several technical challenges to UAS developers, operators and regulators. A primary barrier is the inability for UAS pilots (situated at a ground control station, or GCS) to comply with Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations sections 91.111 and 91.113, which require pilots to “see and avoid” other aircraft in order to maintain well clear. UAS pilots’ removal from the flight deck of the aircraft necessitates the development of a UAS-specific system for detecting nearby traffic and displaying traffic information to the pilot to support their ability to maintain an objectively defined “DAA well clear” threshold from other aircraft. This new UAS-specific function of remaining DAA well clear is called traffic avoidance. The resulting Detect and Avoid (DAA) system, however, will be subject to a collection of requirements that manufacturers will be obligated to meet in order to certify their equipment. RTCA Special Committee 228 (SC-228), a consortium of representatives from government, industry and academia, is responsible for developing and documenting the Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for UAS DAA systems. The present study is the final in a series of human-in-the-loop (HITL) experiments designed to explore and test the various display and alerting requirements being incorporated into the DAA MOPS. Whereas the prior DAA HITLs examined a wide variety of DAA display features and concepts, the current experiment aims to validate the latest minimum display requirements for Phase 1 of the DAA MOPS. Rather than test different display concepts, this study tests two configurations of a MOPS-compatible DAA display: a version that is integrated into the primary navigation and control display of the GCS and a version that is physically separated from the primary display. This manipulation tests the draft minimum requirement that allows the DAA traffic display to be a separate, or standalone, configuration. This type of configuration is a more achievable near-term technology solution since it does not stipulate additional certification or integration requirements on UAS manufacturers. However, a standalone display configuration has the potential to result in pilot performance issues resulting from the cognitive costs of switching between the primary DAA display and the primary navigation and control display. This configuration is also particularly susceptible to errors if the displays are in different orientations (e.g., north-up versus track-up). Both the integrated and standalone display configurations were presented to 16 active UAS pilots in a medium-fidelity simulation, which included confederate air traffic controllers and pseudo pilots operating simulated manned traffic. Pilots were tasked with navigating two different mission routes while maintaining DAA well clear with scripted conflicts. Pilot response times (i.e., measured response) and ability to remain DAA well clear are reported. Primary results indicate that both display configurations resulted in favorable response times and well clear rates. While there were clear trends of pilots objectively performing better in the integrated display condition, with several measured response metrics reaching statistical significance, the differences between the two displays were typically moderate. While the primary variable of DAA display location did not have an especially large impact on pilot performance on its own, when examined alongside the type of DAA threat the pilot was facing (a caution-level versus a warning-level alert), the response time benefits associated with the integrated display were amplified. The implications of these American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 2 results on the Phase 1 DAA MOPS and the connection of this data to previous studies is also discussed.

detect and avoid↗

NASA NTRS2019

Low Size, Weight, and Power (SWaP) Experiments 1 & 2 Flight Test Series 6 VIP Day

This presentation provides an overview of two recently completed human-in-the-loop simulations, conducted as part of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project. These studies investigated the effects of shorter RADAR surveillance ranges on DAA system performance. They were designed to serve as a validation of the fast-time simulation work performed by other groups working on the UAS-NAS project. They were also intended to establish a baseline for the Flight Test 6 Full Mission configuration flights. Low SWaP HITL 1 examined system performance with two candidate non-cooperative DAA well clear (DWC) definitions with a RADAR declaration range of 3.5nm. Low SWaP HITL 2 looked at DAA system performance with four different RADAR declaration ranges (1.5, 2.0, 2.5, & 3.0nm) with a non-cooperative DWC definition of 450ft vertical separation and 2200ft horizontal separation. The results of each study and the implications for FT6 are discussed.

Rorie, Conrad↗

NASA NTRS2019

Terminal Area Considerations for UAS Detect and Avoid

Unmanned Aircraft Systems need to be able to comply with manned aviation ‘see and avoid’ separation requirements. A Detect and Avoid (DAA) System includes sensors, a tracker, and alerting and guidance algorithms that assist a remote pilot in maintaining separation from airborne traffic. To date, DAA system requirements development has focused on operations transiting to and from Class A or special use airspace. Current efforts are defining DAA system requirements for operations in and around terminal airspace. As a contribution to the current efforts, this paper highlights results from a Human in the Loop (HiTL) experiment comparing methods of changing from the transit-specific alerting and guidance criteria to proposed terminal-specific alerting and guidance criteria. It discusses operational considerations that are beyond the HiTL.

Unmanned Aircraft Systems↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Objective Measurement Assessment of Departure Advisories for Ramp Controllers from a Human-In-The-Loop Simulation

NASA has developed and demonstrated an integrated arrival, departure, and surface concept and technology for efficient air traffic management in busy terminal environments under the Airspace Technology Demonstration 2 (ATD-2) subproject. In April/May 2019, NASA conducted a human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation with ramp and tower controllers having experience at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW). The purpose of this HITL was to evaluate the impacts of various surface metering goals in ramp operations at DFW and test new features of the ATD-2 ramp controller decision support tools. This paper evaluates the quantitative metrics from the simulation results related to airport performance and surface metering given various departure scheduling advisories for ramp controllers. The objective measurements compared include the controller’s compliance with the target times for pushback and spot arrival, the number of metered flights, aircraft gate hold and taxi time, runway throughput, and the number of aircraft on the surface. The simulation results show that there were no statistically significant benefits from surface metering at DFW for airport performance due to several simulation artifacts notably different from real operations. Considering controller workload and situation awareness, following either gate pushback or spot arrival advisory could be a better metering option than utilizing both advisories when surface metering is applied at DFW.

airport ramp traffic control decision support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Factors Impact of Different Ramp Controller Scheduling Advisories for ATD-2 Surface Metering in a Human-in-the-Loop Simulation

A human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation took place in 2019 at NASA Ames Research Center’s Future Flight Central, an airport simulator with a full-scale 360-degree view that showed real-time airport operations at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW). The HITL was part of the NASA/FAA Airspace Technology Demonstration 2 (ATD-2) project which involves an on-going field demonstration at Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT). In the field demonstration, metering on the airport surface takes place with one of the goals being to reduce runway queue length by holding aircraft at the gate during busy times, thereby reducing fuel burn and CO2 emissions. This goal has been successfully accomplished at CLT by showing Ramp Controllers when to release aircraft at the gate so as to reduce aircraft waiting in the queue. Among the questions that the current simulation at DFW was designed to address were, "Which types of advisories to the Ramp Controllers work best, those that show a ±2 minute window for a release time from the gate, or a ±5 minute window for an arrival time at the spot (where Air Traffic Control takes over) or both?" and "How do these different types of advisories affect Ramp Controller workload and situation awareness?" Another question was, “Does a ramp that is less restrictive than the one at CLT affect compliance with these advisories?”

Bonny K Parke↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

ACAS Xr Part Task Sim, Preliminary Experiment Design

In early 2022, the Human Autonomy Teaming Lab (NASA Ames Research Center) will conduct a manned, human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation. This part task HITL will begin the lab’s Hazard Perception and Avoidance (HPA) technical work under NASA’s Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), Automated Flight and Contingency Management (AFCM) Sub-Project. The goals will be to assess levels of automation for manned, electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft. This simulation will test manual and automated Resolution Advisory (RA) responses and return-to-course (RTC) maneuvers for the first version of the Airborne Collision Avoidance System’s (ACAS) rotary-wing (Xr) variant. This will be conducted on a fixed-based simulator designed to fly eVTOL aircraft while maneuvering for intruding traffic. Variables for this study include levels of autonomy (i.e., manual and automated) as well as the types of alerts at the onset of conflicts (i.e., Corrective and RA). The data collected will include response times, losses of well clear, and maneuver sizes and durations as well as subjective ratings like acceptability, perceived workload, and meaningful human control. Additional details and future anticipations are also discussed.

air taxis↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Hazard Perception & Avoidance (HPA): Part Task 1 - Results Outbrief

n April 2022, the Human Autonomy Teaming Lab (NASA Ames Research Center) conducted a manned, human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation. This part task HITL began the lab’s Hazard Perception and Avoidance (HPA) technical work under NASA’s Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), Automated Flight and Contingency Management (AFCM) Sub-Project. The goals were to assess levels of automation for manned, electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft. This simulation tested manual and automated Resolution Advisory (RA) responses and return-to-course (RTC) maneuvers for the first version of the Airborne Collision Avoidance System’s (ACAS) rotary-wing (Xr) variant. This was conducted on a fixed-based simulator designed to fly eVTOL aircraft while maneuvering for intruding traffic. Variables for this study included levels of autonomy (i.e., manual and automated) as well as the types of alerts at the onset of conflicts (i.e., Corrective and RA). The data collected included response times, losses of well clear, and maneuver sizes and durations as well as subjective ratings like acceptability, and perceived workload. Additional details and future anticipations are also discussed.

air taxis↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Exploration Helmet Permanent Anti-fog Study

For the current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) spacesuit, an astronaut applies an anti-fog solution to the interior of the helmet bubble before each EVA. However, the anti-fog solution has been reported to cause eye discomfort during at least seven EMU EVAs when the anti-fog solution contacted the crew member’s eyes. During STS-100, astronaut Chris Hadfield reported the eye irritation temporarily blinded him during his spacewalk. In addition, the wipe on anti-fog solution is a consumable that needs to be accounted for and a supply launched for missions. To solve this, the Exploration EMU (xEMU) pressure bubble investigated using a permanent anti-fog coating during Design Verification and Test (DVT) human in the loop (HITL) events. Chosen for previous use in Constellation Space Suit develop, HTAF-601, a water based permanent anti-fog solution, was tested. However, major issues have arisen with further HITL testing with the coating. Cleaning the helmet has been a challenge to avoid damaging the permanent anti-fog coating. NASA has completed a set of different methods for cleaning the anti-fog to try to document a preferred method. It was found isopropyl alcohol (IPA) cannot be used to clean the interior of the helmet because it will strip and delaminate the permanent anti-fog coating. Even with using a very gentle cleaning method of flushing with distilled or DI water and dabbing at facial oils, the permanent anti-fog starts to delaminate consistently after 50 hours manned pressurized time (MPT). Finally, the HTAF-601 coating is being discontinued by the vendor. Due to these issues, further investigation is being completed evaluating two solvent based anti-fog solutions: Exxene’s HCF-100 and FSI’s Visgard 106-94. Each coating will be evaluated on polycarbonate samples for application consistency, steam cycles (mimicking breath cycles), cleaning durability, haze, and light transmission. This study will determine if either coating is a viable option to pursue as a permanent anti-fog for spacesuit helmet applications.

spacesuit↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assured Vehicle Automation 1 Sim - Results Outbrief

In early 2022, the Human Autonomy Teaming Lab (NASA Ames Research Center) conducted a manned, human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation. This part-task HITL began the lab’s Hazard Perception and Avoidance (HPA) technical work under NASA’s Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), Automated Flight and Contingency Management (AFCM) Sub-Project. The results of that sim guided the objectives of the current study, which were to examine pilots’ use of the Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) rotorcraft variant (Xr) v2 in multiple phases of flight with two separate Xr Modes, fully leverage Xr v2 features (e.g., use radar altimeter data to inform low altitude Resolution Advisory [RA] behavior, utilize the ability to designate “terminal-area intruders,” and display airspeed-based Detect and Avoid [DAA] guidance), emulate a “Traffic Advisory” (TA), and present Xr in a higher-fidelity environment. Therefore, this study was conducted in the Vertical Motion Simulator, and the variables included Phase of Flight (En-route, Hover, and Approach) as well as ACAS Xr Mode (TA/RA and DAA). The data collected included response times, losses of well clear, and maneuver sizes and durations as well as subjective ratings like acceptability and usability. Additional details and future anticipations are also discussed.

air taxis↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Hazard Perception & Avoidance (HPA), Assured Vehicle Automation 1 Simulation (AVA-1h) Results Outbrief

In late 2022, the Human Autonomy Teaming Lab (NASA Ames Research Center) conducted a manned, human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation. This HITL was the lab’s second Hazard Perception and Avoidance (HPA) technical work under NASA’s Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), Automated Flight and Contingency Management (AFCM) Sub-Project. The goals were to assess detect and avoid technology for manned, electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft. This simulation tested Resolution Advisory (RA) responses and return-to-course (RTC) maneuvers for the second version of the Airborne Collision Avoidance System’s (ACAS) rotary-wing (Xr) variant. This was conducted at the center's Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS), on a motion-based platform, and was configured to fly eVTOL aircraft while maneuvering for intruding traffic. Variables for this study included ACAS Xr modes (i.e., TA/RA and DAA) and phases of flight (i.e., Cruise, Hover, and Approach). The data collected included response times, losses of well clear, and pilots' noncompliances to alerts and guidance as well as subjective ratings like acceptability and perceived workload. Additional details and future anticipations are also discussed.

ACAS Xr↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Teal Cycle Ergometer Vibration Isolation and Stabilization System Human-in-the-Loop Ground Evaluation for Long-Duration Spaceflight

Purpose: To counter the deleterious effects of weightlessness on the cardiopulmonary system, astronauts living on the International Space Station exercise on a variety of countermeasure equipment including the Cycle Ergometer Vibration Isolation and Stabilization System (CEVIS). Operational since 2001, the onboard CEVIS will be replaced by a new model, known as Teal CEVIS (TC). As a part of ground evaluation, TC hardware underwent human-in-the-loop (HITL) testing to verify the TC hardware produces workloads that elicit physiologic responses comparable to a laboratory cycle ergometer (LAB). Methods: Seven subjects (5 M/2 F) performed submaximal cycle ergometer testing with indirect calorimetry measures on TC and LAB on separate test days. Testing consisted of graded 30 watt increases in workload until subjects reached 85% of age-predicted max heart rate (HR). Exercise outcomes included rate of oxygen uptake (VO2; liters/min), rate of energy expenditure (REE; kcal/min), and HR (beats/min). Linear mixed models (LMM) were fitted to compare VO2, REE, and HR responses between devices across power outputs with fixed effects for power (P) and device (D) and with random effects for subject. LMM effect coefficients (β), std errors (SE), pseudo-partial R2 of effects (pR2), and model likelihood ratio statistics (χ2, Pr(> chisq); α<.05) are provided. Results: LMM main effects for P and D were observed for VO2 (βp=.0107, SE = .0002, pR2=0.97; βd = -0.075, SE = 0.019, pR2=0.14; χ2(1)= 13.57, p<.001), such that VO2 was higher across stages on TC. Main effects of P and D were observed for REE (βp= .0586, SE = 0.001, pR2= 0.97; βd = -0.33208, SE = 0.099, pR2= 0.056; χ2(1)=10.481, p < .01), such that REE was higher across power outputs on TC. A P x D interaction was observed for HR, along with main effects for P and D (βp x d =-0.048, SE = 0.02, pR2=0.048; βp= 0.42, SE = 0.016, pR2=0.87; χ2(1) = 5.398, p = 0.02), such that higher workloads elicited a greater difference in HR between devices. Conclusions: HITL results show, TC elicits greater physiologic responses across power outputs compared to LAB. However, pR2 for device effects show small differences between devices. Therefore, TC can be expected to provide appropriate physiological stimulus across workloads and be considered a reliable tool to mitigate the effects of weightlessness.

Cycle Ergometer Vibration and Isolation System↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Predictive Workload Model for Air Traffic Controllers during UAM Operations

The effect of airspace factors on air traffic controller (ATC) workload has been an active area of study for almost three decades due to the importance of safety considerations necessary to design and maintain operations. Existing literature has examined several traffic-related (e.g., number of aircraft under control, loss of separation) contributors to ATC workload and proposed mathematical functions to best describe controller response. However, future air traffic continues to increase in complexity with the introduction of urban air mobility (UAM) – or the transportation of humans and cargo using electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft. UAM aims to alleviate congestion for existing ground transportation systems and improve mobility within urban centers and other high-demand locations. This shift in the traditional airspace paradigm necessitates an evolved understanding of model use and development for ATC workload prediction. This study aimed to develop an ATC workload forecasting model based on human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation data for UAM operations at large airports. Data collected from the HITL simulation served as the training and testing data for a Long Short-Term Memory recurrent neural network and enabled time-series forecasting of ATC workload from traffic characteristics. Results demonstrated the potential of LSTM models for forecasting ATC workload 40 minutes into the future and highlighted important considerations for future development.

predictive model↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Predictive Workload Model for Air Traffic Controllers during UAM Operations

predictive model↗