Results for “Uncrewed Aircraft Systems” — Page 4

NASA NTRS2010

Integration of Advanced Concepts and Vehicles Into the Next Generation Air Transportation System: Introduction, Key Messages, and Vehicle Attributes - Volume 1

Raytheon, in partnership with NASA, is leading the way in ensuring that the future air transportation continues to be a key driver of economic growth and stability and that this system provides an environmentally friendly, safe, and effective means of moving people and goods. A Raytheon-led team of industry and academic experts, under NASA contract NNA08BA47C, looked at the potential issues and impact of introducing four new classes of advanced aircraft into the next generation air transportation system -- known as NextGen. The study will help determine where NASA should further invest in research to support the safe introduction of these new air vehicles. Small uncrewed or unmanned aerial systems (SUAS), super heavy transports (SHT) including hybrid wing body versions (HWB), very light jets (VLJ), and supersonic business jets (SSBJ) are the four classes of aircraft that we studied. Understanding each vehicle's business purpose and strategy is critical to assessing the feasibility of new aircraft operations and their impact on NextGen's architecture. The Raytheon team used scenarios created by aviation experts that depict vehicles in year 2025 operations along with scripts or use cases to understand the issues presented by these new types of vehicles. The information was then mapped into the Joint Planning and Development Office's (JPDO s) Enterprise Architecture to show how the vehicles will fit into NextGen's Concept of Operations. The team also identified significant changes to the JPDO's Integrated Work Plan (IWP) to optimize the NextGen vision for these vehicles. Using a proven enterprise architecture approach and the JPDO s Joint Planning Environment (JPE) web site helped make the leap from architecture to planning efficient, manageable and achievable. Very Light Jets flying into busy hub airports -- Supersonic Business Jets needing to climb and descend rapidly to achieve the necessary altitude Super-heavy cargo planes requiring the shortest common flight path -- are just a few of the potential new operations in the future National Airspace System. To assess the impact of these new scenarios on overall national airspace operations, the Raytheon team used the capabilities of a suite of tools such as NASA's Airspace Concepts Evaluation System (ACES), the Flight Optimization System (FLOPS), FAA's Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT), Intelligent Automations Kinematic Trajectory Generator (KTG) and the Aviation Safety Risk Model (ASRM). Detailed metroplex modeling, surface delay models for super heavy transports, prioritized routing and corridors for supersonics business jets, and VLJ demand models are some of the models developed by the Raytheon team to study the effect of operating these new vehicles in the future NAS. Using this suite of models, several trade studies were conducted to evaluate these effects in terms of delays, equity in access, safety, and the environment. Looking at the impact of each vehicle, a number of critical issues were identified. The Raytheon team concluded that strict compliance to NextGen's 4-dimensional trajectory (4DT) management will be required to accommodate these vehicles unique operations and increased number of flights in the future air space system. The next section provides a discussion of this and the other key findings from our study.

Zellweger, Andres↗

NASA NTRS2024

High Density Vertiplex - Scalable Autonomous Operations - Flight Test Report

This Technical Memorandum describes the approach taken within the High Density Vertiplex Project to perform rapid prototyping and assessment of the UAM Ecosystem including representative: Onboard Autonomous Systems, Ground Control and Fleet Management Systems, Airspace Management Systems, and Vertiport Automation Systems (VAS). Small Uncrewed Aerial Systems (sUAS) were employed as effective low risk and inexpensive surrogates for larger proposed UAM aircraft to accelerate the prototyping effort, ensure safety, greatly mitigate costs, and accelerate progress. Flight testing performed included multivehicle operations where usability Human Factors (HF) data was collected on the operators.

Jacob Schaefer↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Applying Formal Methods to Safety-Critical Systems

How do you know a proof is correct? Traditionally, mathematical proofs are socially verified – at least one human, following a set of implicit rules of natural language and logic, determines if the proof is believable. If the proof becomes overly tedious and/or is essential to some safety- or mission-critical application, it becomes necessary to determine the soundness to a higher standard. 'Formal methods' refer to mathematically rigorous techniques and tools that enable specification, design, and verification of hardware and software systems. The specification used in formal methods are statements in a mathematical logic while the formal verifications are deductions in that logic. Formal methods can be difficult or time/resource intensive, but offer a higher level of assurance than standard verification through testing or handwritten proofs. This talk will introduce formal methods, motivated by applications of interest to NASA, including uncrewed aircraft operations in the national airspace, urban air environments, and wildfire areas. The audience will be given a crash course in mechanically verified proofs in the Prototype Verification System (PVS), an interactive theorem prover.

Formal Methods↗

NASA NTRS2025

Distributed Sensing Node Configuration

A vision and radar sensor integration strategy for surveillance of Advance Air Mobility Mission concept of airspace is contained in the CAD drawing in this publication developed as part of NASA's Transformational Tools and Technology project. High-density airspace operations with multiple aircraft type and potentially noncooperative aircraft require distributed sensor detection and tracking systems to monitor airspace for safe, autonomous flight operations for advanced air mobility, urban air mobility, and high density small uncrewed air systems (SUAS) flight concepts. Contained herein are drawings that are available in the stp and creo file formats of the distributed sensing nodes. Additional dovetail integration is included to enable rapid changing of embedded system. A day in the life node deployment is included in the 2023_last_flight_day.mp4. Please cite this publication if you use these drawings. This sensor configuration methodology is presented in detail in the publication reference below. Chester Dolph, Thomas Lombaerts, Corey A. Ippolito, Vahram Stepanyan, Evan Kawamura, Keerthana Kannan, George Szatkowski, Todd Ferante, Christopher Morris, Federica Vitiello, Flavia Causa, Roberto Opromolla and Giancarmine Fasano. "Distributed Sensor Fusion of Ground and Air Nodes using Vision and Radar Modalities for Tracking Multirotor Small Uncrewed Air Systems and Birds," AIAA 2024-1781. AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum. January 2024.

Chester V Dolph↗

NASA NTRS2023

m:N Working Group Spring Meeting Summary

On May 9th and 11th, 2023, the NASA-led MultiVehicle (m:N) Working Group and its subgroups [small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS), Large UAS, High Altitude Pseudo Satellite (HAPS), and Urban Air Mobility (UAM)] met in Denver, CO at XPONENTIAL 2023, co-hosted by the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) and Messe Düsseldorf North America (MDNA), for an in-person meeting. The subgroups meet multiple times throughout the year, virtually. Twice a year, however, participants from all the subgroups come together to brief each other on progress, challenges, and path forward ideas for incorporating UAS into the airspace. The m:N working group is co-chaired by Jay Shively (Adaptive Aerospace) and Andy Thurling (Thurling Aero Consulting) and is comprised of members from government, industry, and academia in an effort to identify and reduce barriers to m:N operations. This effort also includes identifying requirements, use cases, and metrics to support organizations and groups, including the FAA and RTCA’s SC-228 Detect and Avoid.

multi-vehicle↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A New Control Paradigm: Multiple Aircraft Controlled by Multiple Operators

Remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) are becoming more and more prevalent in the aerospace operations. This is true in a number of diverse domains; urban air mobility, medical product delivery, infrastructure inspection, high altitude pseudo-satellites, search and rescue, auto cargo and several other applications. One aspect that all of these share in common is the need for scalability to be viable and continue to grow. The Association of Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) develops an annual economic report. They project that in the first three years of integration more than 70,000 jobs will be created in the US alone, with an economic impact of more than $13.6 billion. This benefit will grow through 2025 when we foresee more than 100,000 jobs created and economic impact of $82 billion. For many of these domains to reach these levels and have the scalability needed, they will require a remote pilot to control multiple aircraft (1:N) or the extension of that, multiple pilots controlling multiple aircraft (m:N). This is a new control paradigm that raises multiple issues in various areas. The issues include regulatory, technical, safety, community acceptance and Human Factors. Human factors issues include displays, pilot workload, pilot situation awareness just to name a few. This panel brings together researchers, developers and operators that have been working in the area of m:N. They will discuss the need, the issues and some potential solutions.

multi-vehicle control↗

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 NTRSDate not supplied

Initial testing of the Uncrewed Aerial System Pilot Kit (UASP-kit) in Operational Settings

Remote pilots for small uncrewed aerial systems (sUAS) are at a disadvantage for building situation awareness of the airspace in which they are flying, because of limited sight lines and distance from cell towers. A tool to provide increased air traffic situation awareness for an sUAS pilot is being developed. The “UASP-kit” is small and self-contained, with its chief capability being to collect and display Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast reports of local aircraft. UASP-kits were taken into the field, introduced to users during a training course, and then left with them for the summer fire season. sUAS pilots used the prototypes when it was appropriate throughout the summer. The UASP-kits were operational for a total of 79 flight-days. Users noted that the UASP-kits supported their situation awareness but also identified several usability issues. The findings contribute to validation of the UASP-kit, and support continuing the work to improve the tool and develop additional functionality.

STEReO↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assessing Helicopter Pilots’ Detect and Avoid and Collision Avoidance Performance With ACAS Xr

The latest variant of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS X) is being designed for both crewed and uncrewed rotorcraft. Referred to as ACAS Xr, the system joins a suite of other ACAS X variants poised to replace the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS II). ACAS Xr is tuned to support current-day helicopter platforms as well as electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) vehicles that are still under development. Given this flexibility, ACAS Xr may be used by helicopter crews currently in operation or by remotely-operated eVTOL aircraft in the emerging Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) market. To cover the range of potential uses, two distinct configurations are being proposed for ACAS Xr: Collision Avoidance System (CAS) and Detect and Avoid (DAA). Under the CAS configuration, ACAS Xr provides minimal caution-level alerting but issues directive warning-level alerting and guidance. The DAA configuration, by contrast, provides caution-level alerting and guidance, in addition to the warning-level alerting and guidance. The current study was performed as part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s AAM project. Six helicopter pilots were recruited to fly a variety of scripted traffic scenarios in a full-motion, crewed eVTOL simulator. Participants flew 60 encounters over two days, reacting to pre-recorded intruder aircraft that were scripted to fly into the participant’s aircraft from different approach angles, relative altitudes, and during different phases of flight. The pilots flew half of the encounters with the CAS configuration and half with the DAA configuration. Within each block of 30 encounters, pilots experienced 10 conflicts while in cruise, 10 in hover, and 10 while on approach to a heliport. Results showed that pilot response times were consistently under 5 seconds for RAs and under 10 seconds for DAA alerts, when present, during all three phases of flight. Unsurprisingly, the DAA configuration was associated with lower rates of en-route and high-severity losses of DAA well clear compared to the CAS configuration in all phases of flight except for the terminal area. Rates of losses of DAA well clear were found to be substantially higher in the Hover scenario, compared to Cruise. Pilots failed to fully comply with RAs at a rate of 0.10-0.18 in all conditions except for the DAA configuration in the Hover scenario, which was associated with a higher non-compliance rate of 0.4 due to Descend RAs issued at low altitudes. The implications of these results with regards to the ongoing development of ACAS Xr is discussed.

air taxis↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assessing Helicopter Pilots’ Detect and Avoid and Collision Avoidance Performance with ACAS Xr

The latest variant of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS X) is being designed for both crewed and uncrewed rotorcraft. Referred to as ACAS Xr, the system joins a suite of other ACAS X variants poised to replace the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS II). ACAS Xr is tuned to support current-day helicopter platforms as well as electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) vehicles that are still under development. Given this flexibility, ACAS Xr may be used by helicopter crews currently in operation or by remotely-operated eVTOL aircraft in the emerging Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) market. To cover the range of potential uses, two distinct configurations are being proposed for ACAS Xr: Collision Avoidance System (CAS) and Detect and Avoid (DAA). Under the CAS configuration, ACAS Xr provides minimal caution-level alerting but issues directive warning-level alerting and guidance. The DAA configuration, by contrast, provides caution-level alerting and guidance, in addition to the warning-level alerting and guidance. The current study was performed as part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s AAM project. Six helicopter pilots were recruited to fly a variety of scripted traffic scenarios in a full-motion, crewed eVTOL simulator. Participants flew 60 encounters over two days, reacting to pre-recorded intruder aircraft that were scripted to fly into the participant’s aircraft from different approach angles, relative altitudes, and during different phases of flight. The pilots flew half of the encounters with the CAS configuration and half with the DAA configuration. Within each block of 30 encounters, pilots experienced 10 conflicts while in cruise, 10 in hover, and 10 while on approach to a heliport. Results showed that pilot response times were consistently under 5 seconds for RAs and under 10 seconds for DAA alerts, when present, during all three phases of flight. Unsurprisingly, the DAA configuration was associated with lower rates of en-route and high-severity losses of DAA well clear compared to the CAS configuration in all phases of flight except for the terminal area. Rates of losses of DAA well clear were found to be substantially higher in the Hover scenario, compared to Cruise. Pilots failed to fully comply with RAs at a rate of 0.10-0.18 in all conditions except for the DAA configuration in the Hover scenario, which was associated with a higher non-compliance rate of 0.4 due to Descend RAs issued at low altitudes. The implications of these results with regards to the ongoing development of ACAS Xr is discussed.

air taxis↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Initial testing of the Uncrewed Aerial System Pilot Kit (UASP-kit) in Operational Settings

Pilots for small uncrewed aerial systems (sUAS) are at a disadvantage for building situation awareness of the remote airspace in which they are flying, simply because they are distant from their vehicles. A tool to provide increased air traffic situation awareness for an sUAS pilot is being developed. The UAS pilot kit, “UASP-kit,” is small and self-contained, with its chief capability being to collect and display Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast reports of local aircraft. UASP-kits were taken into the field, introduced to users during a training course, and then left with them for the summer fire season. sUAS pilots used the prototypes when it was appropriate throughout the summer. The UASP-kits were operational for a total of 79 flight-days. Users reported that the UASP-kits supported their situation awareness but also identified several usability issues. The findings contribute to validation of the UASP-kit, and support continuing the work to improve the tool and develop additional functionality.

STEReO↗

NASA NTRS2021

Standard Materials and Processes Requirements for Spacecraft

This NASA Technical Standard is directed toward materials and processes (M&P) used in the design, fabrication, and testing of space program flight hardware for NASA, including but not limited to crewed, uncrewed, robotic, launch vehicle, lander, in-space and surface systems, and spacecraft program/project hardware elements. All spaceflight hardware is covered by the M&P requirements of this document, including vendor-designed, off-the-shelf, and vendor-furnished items. M&P used in interfacing ground support equipment (GSE), test equipment, hardware processing equipment, hardware packaging, and hardware shipment is covered by the M&P requirements of this NASA Technical Standard only to the extent required to prevent damage to or contamination of spaceflight hardware (see section 4). M&P used in NASA aircraft and aircraft operations are not covered by the M&P requirements of this document.

Materials↗

NASA NTRS2024

Assessment of Secondary Pitot Probe Locations on a Small UAS

Urban Air Mobility (UAM) and Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) have been at the forefront of many aeronautical discussions because of the potential revolutionary improvement to urban transportation. In this study, a representative Research Aircraft for eVTOL Enabling techNologies, Sub-scale Wind Tunnel Flight Test (RAVEN SWFT) nosecone was placed inside the NASA Langley Research Center’s 12-Foot Low-Speed Wind Tunnel with a pitot-static assembly installed. The study aimed to determine a suitable location and orientation of the pitot-static assembly on the nose of the vehicle, which consists of two airspeed sensors: one for the flight controller and one for data collection. The dynamic pressure was varied from 0.5 to 5psf for each test point. Additionally, three different offset distances from the center boom and three different angles for the flight controller pitot tube were tested. The data from both of the pitot tube assemblies were compared to the wind tunnel and the Aeroprobe pitot tube. The results show the flight controller pitot tube performs better when it is placed further away from the nosecone, regardless of the angle. The results also show that the angle does not affect the accuracy of the pitot tube when the vehicle yaws or pitches regardless of the mounting angle and location. The study provides useful insights for the design of the airspeed measurement systems on small Uncrewed Aerial Systems (sUAS), which can be applied to other UAM and AAM applications.

AAM↗

NASA NTRS2024

Testing of Advanced Capabilities to Enable In-time Safety Management and Assurance for Future Flight Operations

In order to refine an initial Concept of Operations, explore Concepts of Use, and expose/validate requirements for future In-Time Aviation Safety Management Systems (IASMS), testing architectures were created, along with a set of capabilities and underlying information exchange protocols. These systems were conceived and developed based on hazards associated with two envisioned urban area flight domains: (1) highly autonomous small uncrewed aerial systems (sUAS) operating at low altitudes, and (2) highly autonomous air taxis. The initial scope of this development is described in [1]; this report provides an update, focusing on the subsequent developments and test activities. As stated in [1], it is important to note that there are many capabilities already in use by the industry (or soon to be in use) that will play critical roles in future IASMS designs. Those reported here were developed to address a gap in the current state-of-the-art regarding specific hazards/risks, and/or to allow for investigation of the interplay between and across hazard types — particularly regarding how overall safety risk can be reduced or managed effectively. Results of testing and development activities are organized by the operational phase wherein a particular capability would be employed (i.e., preflight, in-flight, and post-flight/off-line). Pre-flight: A set of capabilities were developed to help mitigate safety risk prior to flight (e.g., during flight and mission planning). Results of testing summarize (1) validation activities to raise the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and (2) evaluation activities where the capabilities were applied to flight/mission planning procedures and used by operators/pilots. For the latter, flight plans were automatically assessed, and operators/pilots were notified of hazardous flight segments so as to enable adjustment of the flight plan and re-evaluation, and/or to better inform go/no-go decisions. Capabilities addressed hazards associated with power consumption, third-party risk, wind, navigation system performance, radiofrequency interference, and proximity to geo-spatial threats (e.g., buildings, trees, and no-fly zones). In-flight: Flight experiments tested capabilities that detect and respond to hazards encountered during flight. In the first series, safety hazards were monitored and assessed onboard, and system-generated mitigation maneuvers were recorded (but not acted upon by the vehicle). In the second series, mitigation maneuver commands directed the aircraft in response to safety hazards (i.e., auto-mitigation). The sUAS used for testing is described in full, as is the test architecture, which included commercial avionics, research avionics, and onboard software designed to detect, assess, and respond to hazards. The onboard system was designed as a run-time assurance framework, consistent with [2] and supportive of both supervisory and automated modes. The primary functions included: real-time risk assessment (RTRA), auto-pilot monitoring, constraint monitoring, and contingency select/triggering. RTRA performs integrated risk assessment considering data from several hazard-related monitors (e.g., battery, motors, navigation, communications, population density, and loss-of-control). Post-flight/off-line: Data monitored and recorded during flights can enable IASMS capabilities that execute after flights have completed (or “off-line”). These include: (1) the ability to identify anomalies and trends that may only be observable when comparing data spanning a number of similar flights; (2) the ability to update and validate pre-flight and in-flight capabilities and any underlying models to improve their performance; (3) the ability to report anomalies/off-nominals that may indicate design changes or maintenance actions are needed; and (4) the ability for humans involved in operations to report safety-relevant observations to help in understanding the flight data and/or the operational context of a flight. Progress on three such capabilities is summarized; the first investigates anomaly detection given a limited set of flight logs and applies an approach previously used for space operations. The second explores what could be identified using a larger set of flight logs, including from web-based forums where flight logs are posted by sUAS autopilot users. The third creates a new means of collecting information on UAS incidents and accidents via the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS).

sUAS↗

NASA NTRS2024

Vertiport Management from Simulation to Flight: Continued Human Factors Assessment of Vertiport Operations

The Urban Air Mobility concept envisions a new future for transportation in urban environments, primarily focused around vertiport operations. A vertiport refers to an identifiable ground or elevated area used for the vertical takeoff and landing of an aircraft. One critical role within vertiport operations that has been proposed but is under-researched is the vertiport manager. The vertiport manager is expected to manage the ground-to-air operations at the vertiport, but their precise responsibilities, tasks, and challenges are currently undefined. The High Density Vertiplex Subproject at NASA is responsible for developing and testing technologies, concepts, and architectures that will support the infrastructure needed for terminal environments around vertiports. Our previous work investigated ground control station operators performing simulated and live flight operations within a remote operations environment. In the current study, we extended from our previous work to explore the role of a vertiport manager. Specifically, we investigated five participants serving as a vertiport manager across both simulated and live flight operations. We performed multiple knowledge elicitation techniques, a thematic content analysis of qualitative data, and naturalistic observations to create a list of insights, design and training recommendations, and a simplified cognitive task diagram of the vertiport manager’s primary task. Findings from this study are discussed within the context of the current debate on the degree to which this role should be automated. A third alternative is suggested to allow a human vertiport manager to be successful by teaming with increasingly autonomous systems, designing the role to improve safety and efficiency of Urban Air Mobility operations.

AAM↗

NASA NTRS2024

Vertiport Management from Simulation to Flight: Continued Human Factors Assessment of Vertiport Operations

The Urban Air Mobility concept envisions a new future for transportation in urban environments, primarily focused around vertiport operations. A vertiport refers to an identifiable ground or elevated area used for the vertical takeoff and landing of an aircraft. One critical role within vertiport operations that has been proposed but is under-researched is the vertiport manager. The vertiport manager is expected to manage the ground-to-air operations at the vertiport, but their precise responsibilities, tasks, and challenges are currently undefined. The High Density Vertiplex Subproject at NASA is responsible for developing and testing technologies, concepts, and architectures that will support the infrastructure needed for terminal environments around vertiports. Our previous work investigated ground control station operators performing simulated and live flight operations within a remote operations environment. In the current study, we extended from our previous work to explore the role of a vertiport manager. Specifically, we investigated five participants serving as a vertiport manager across both simulated and live flight operations. We performed multiple knowledge elicitation techniques, a thematic content analysis of qualitative data, and naturalistic observations to create a list of insights, design and training recommendations, and a simplified cognitive task diagram of the vertiport manager’s primary task. Findings from this study are discussed within the context of the current debate on the degree to which this role should be automated. A third alternative is suggested to allow a human vertiport manager to be successful by teaming with increasingly autonomous systems, designing the role to improve safety and efficiency of Urban Air Mobility operations.

AAM↗