Results for “Well Clear” — Page 4

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assistive Detect and Avoid for Pilots in the Cockpit

Aircraft not receiving radar services rely on see and avoid and radio coordination via Common Traffic Advisory Frequencies to remain well clear of each other and avoid mid-air collisions. Radio coordination is usually performed in the vicinity of non-towered airports whereas non-radar services en-route operations rely solely on see and avoid. This paper presents the results of a simulation study of the effectiveness of assistive detect and avoid technologies when used to enhance pilots’ ability to see and avoid nearby traffic. Three different experimental conditions are modeled, representing “unaided see and avoid”, “see and avoid with traffic advisories”, and “see and avoid with assistive detect and avoid technology”. The effectiveness of see and avoid is evaluated using a set of head-on, crossing, and overtaking encounter scenarios and a model of visual acquisition embedded in a Monte Carlo simulation. The effectiveness of assistive detect and avoid is estimated for the same encounter scenarios. A prototype system for detect and avoid and a summary of results are presented. Preliminary results strongly suggest that assistive detect and avoid could greatly enhance the capabilities of flight crews to avoid traffic and remain well clear.

collision↗

NASA NTRS2015

Evaluating Performance of UAS Detect-And-Avoid System Using a Fast-Time Simulation Tool

Most unmanned aircraft systems will be required to be equipped with a Detect-and-Avoid (DAA) system. The surveillance performance of the DAA system to detect and track intruder aircraft will depend on the encounter geometries that unmanned aircraft are expected to have with other aircraft in the airspace. The performance of DAA alerting and avoidance system is also dependent on the timeliness of alerting for UAS pilots to give a sufficient time to determine and command a resolution maneuver to avoid well clear separation violations. This presentation introduces general background of UAS DAA systems and concept of well clear separation standard to satisfy see and avoid regulations. The presentation shows the several UAS mission profiles and analysis of the encounter geometries that were simulated using historical VFR traffic data and some proposed UAS missions. This presentation introduces several potential metrics for evaluating the performance of a DAA system and shows the results that measured through fast-time simulation with traffic scenarios that include NAS-wide VFR manned aircraft and IFR UAS flights. At the end, some research areas will be briefly discussed.

UAS↗

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 NTRS2016

Air Traffic Controller Acceptability of Unmanned Aircraft System Detect-and-Avoid Thresholds

A human-in-the-loop experiment was conducted with 15 retired air traffic controllers to investigate two research questions: (a) what procedures are appropriate for the use of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) detect-and-avoid systems, and (b) how long in advance of a predicted close encounter should pilots request or execute a separation maneuver. The controller participants managed a busy Oakland air route traffic control sector with mixed commercial/general aviation and manned/UAS traffic, providing separation services, miles-in-trail restrictions and issuing traffic advisories. Controllers filled out post-scenario and post-simulation questionnaires, and metrics were collected on the acceptability of procedural options and temporal thresholds. The states of aircraft were also recorded when controllers issued traffic advisories. Subjective feedback indicated a strong preference for pilots to request maneuvers to remain well clear from intruder aircraft rather than deviate from their IFR clearance. Controllers also reported that maneuvering at 120 seconds until closest point of approach (CPA) was too early; maneuvers executed with less than 90 seconds until CPA were more acceptable. The magnitudes of the requested maneuvers were frequently judged to be too large, indicating a possible discrepancy between the quantitative UAS well clear standard and the one employed subjectively by manned pilots. The ranges between pairs of aircraft and the times to CPA at which traffic advisories were issued were used to construct empirical probability distributions of those metrics. Given these distributions, we propose that UAS pilots wait until an intruder aircraft is approximately 80 seconds to CPA or 6 nmi away before requesting a maneuver, and maneuver immediately if the intruder is within 60 seconds and 4 nmi. These thresholds should make the use of UAS detect and avoid systems compatible with current airspace procedures and controller expectations.

unmanned aircraft systems↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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

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

eVTOL↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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

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

eVTOL↗

NASA NTRS2015

Java Architecture for Detect and Avoid Extensibility and Modeling

Unmanned aircraft will equip with a detect-and-avoid (DAA) system that enables them to comply with the requirement to "see and avoid" other aircraft, an important layer in the overall set of procedural, strategic and tactical separation methods designed to prevent mid-air collisions. This paper describes a capability called Java Architecture for Detect and Avoid Extensibility and Modeling (JADEM), developed to prototype and help evaluate various DAA technological requirements by providing a flexible and extensible software platform that models all major detect-and-avoid functions. Figure 1 illustrates JADEM's architecture. The surveillance module can be actual equipment on the unmanned aircraft or simulators that model the process by which sensors on-board detect other aircraft and provide track data to the traffic display. The track evaluation function evaluates each detected aircraft and decides whether to provide an alert to the pilot and its severity. Guidance is a combination of intruder track information, alerting, and avoidance/advisory algorithms behind the tools shown on the traffic display to aid the pilot in determining a maneuver to avoid a loss of well clear. All these functions are designed with a common interface and configurable implementation, which is critical in exploring DAA requirements. To date, JADEM has been utilized in three computer simulations of the National Airspace System, three pilot-in-the-loop experiments using a total of 37 professional UAS pilots, and two flight tests using NASA's Predator-B unmanned aircraft, named Ikhana. The data collected has directly informed the quantitative separation standard for "well clear", safety case, requirements development, and the operational environment for the DAA minimum operational performance standards. This work was performed by the Separation Assurance/Sense and Avoid Interoperability team under NASA's UAS Integration in the NAS project.

unmanned aircraft systems↗

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. The present study is the final in a series of human-in-the-loop experiments designed to explore and test the various display and alerting requirements being incorporated into the minimum operational performance standards (MOPS) for a UAS-specific detect and avoid system that would replace the see and avoid function required of manned aircraft. Two display configurations were tested - an integrated display and a standalone display - and their impact on pilot response times and ability to maintain DAA well clear were compared. Results indicated that the current draft of the MOPS result in high-level performance and did not meaningfully differ by display configuration.

unmanned aircraft systems↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Monocular Ranging for Small Unmanned Aerial Systems in the Far-Field

Recent proliferation of small Unmanned Aerial Systems (sUAS) applications requires onboard collision avoidance systems to mitigate the risk of collision with non-cooperative aircraft and manned aircraft, which may not see sUAS in time to perform an avoidance maneuver. An attractive avenue for onboard collision avoidance is the utilization of machine vision cameras due to their low size, weight and power (SWaP) requirements. In this paper, we characterize the range performance of a machine vision system developed in-house and mounted onto an sUAS. The technique was designed to estimate the performance of a sense-and-avoid system to ensure that the sensing components meet the well-clear requirements for the chosen platform and avoidance strategy. Experimental flight-test data was acquired from test-flights flown along multiple collision geometries for two intruders: a general Aviation (GA) aircraft and a fixed-wing sUAS. The ownship and both intruders were instrumented with inertial navigation systems (INS) recording position and attitude information. The range at first detection, 𝑹𝟎, was extracted from in-flight imagery of head-on collision course geometry synchronized with INS data from both aircraft and ground-truth values extracted from the raw imagery. This initial detection distance, 𝑹𝟎, scales with atmospheric attenuation. Therefore, under clear sky conditions, the derived 𝑹𝟎 value represents the upper bound on the detection range achievable by the test configuration of the detector. Results indicate that the maximum initial detection distance for a 4k resolution action camera fitted with a 41º Field of View (FOV) lens is 2.763 ± 0.037 km for a GA aircraft and 0.881 ± 0.061 km for a fixed-wing sUAS, respectively. The in results this study suggest that a vision-based detect and track system may be analyzed using the sensor characterization and contextualized within aircraft well-clear volumes.

Chester V. Dolph↗

NASA NTRS2016

Defining the Collision Avoidance Region for DAA Systems

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 maintain well clear of other aircraft, some of which may be equipped with a Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) to mitigate the possibility of mid-‐air collisions. As such, the minimum operational performance standards (MOPS) for UAS DAA systems are being designed with TCAS interoperability in mind by a group of industry, government, and academic institutions named RTCA Special Committee-228 (SC-228). This document will discuss the development of the spatial-‐temporal volume known as the collision avoidance region in which the DAA system is not allowed to provide vertical guidance to maintain or regain DAA well clear that could conflict with resolution advisories (RAs) issued by the intruder aircraft's TCAS system. Three collision avoidance region definition candidates were developed based on the existing TCAS RA and DAA alerting definitions. They were evaluated against each other in terms of their interoperability with TCAS RAs and DAA alerts in an unmitigated factorial encounter analysis of 1.3 million simulated pairs.

collision avoidance region↗

NASA NTRS2021

Detection and Tracking of Aircraft in the Far-Field from Small Unmanned Aerial Systems

Onboard far-field aircraft detection is needed for safe non-cooperative traffic mitigation in autonomous small Unmanned Aerial System (sUAS) operations. Machine vision systems, based on standard optics and visible light detectors, possess the ideal size, weight, and power (SWaP) requirements for sUAS. This work presents the design and analysis of a novel aircraft detection and tracking pipeline based on optical sensing alone. Key contributions of the work include a refined range inequality model based on sensing and detection with FAA well-clear separation assurance distances between aircraft in mind, a detector fusion method to maximize the benefit of two image detectors, and a comparative analysis of Linear Kalman-filtering and Extended Kalman-filtering to seek optimal tracking performance. The pipeline is evaluated offline against multiple intruder platforms, using two types of flight encounters: multirotor sUAS vs. fixed-wing sUAS and multirotor sUAS vs. general aviation(GA)plane. Analysis is restricted to the rate-limiting head-on and departing collision volume cases vertically separated for safety. Results indicate that it is feasible to use the proposed optical spatial-temporal tracking algorithm to provide adequate alerting time to prevent penetration of well-clear separation volumes for both sUAS and GA aircraft.

Unmanned Aerial System↗

NASA NTRS2021

UAS Integration in the NAS Flight Test 6: Full Mission Results

Recent standards development efforts for the integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS) such as those in RTCA Inc. Special Committee 228 (SC-228) have focused on relatively large UAS transitioning to and from Class A airspace. In an effort to expand the range of vehicle classes that can access the NAS, the NASA UAS Integration in the NAS project has investigated Low Size, Weight, and Power (Low SWaP) technologies that would allow smaller UAS to detect-and-avoid (DAA) traffic. Through batch and human in the loop (HITL) simulation studies, the UAS Integration in the NAS DAA subproject have identified candidate performance standards that would contribute to enabling extended Low SWaP, UAS operations under 10,000 feet. These candidate performance standards include minimum field of regard (FOR) values for Low SWaP air surveillance sensors as well as a DAA well-clear (DWC) definition which can be applied to non-cooperative traffic to reduce the required maneuver initiation range. To test the assumptions of the project’s simulation studies and validate the candidate performance standards, a live flight research event was executed at NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center. The UAS Integration in the NAS Project Flight Test 6 Full Mission sought to characterize UAS pilot responses to traffic conflicts using a representative Low SWAP DAA system in an operational NAS environment. To achieve this, live, virtual and constructive distributed environment (LVC-DE) elements were combined to simulate a sector of Oakland center airspace and induce encounters with a live, manned aircraft. A Navmar Applied Sciences Tigershark XP was used as the UAS ownship and was integrated into the test architecture to enable it to be controlled from a Vigilant Spirit Control Station (VSCS) research ground control station. Qualified UAS pilots were recruited to act as subject pilots under test (SPUT) to control the Tigershark XP in a simulated mission while coordinating with a participating air traffic controller in simulated airspace. The intruder speed, intruder equipage and encounter geometry were varied between six scripted encounters per SPUT. Various metrics were collected including pilot reaction time from the onset of DAA alert, ATC coordination rate, probability and severity of losses of DAA well clear, and subjective ratings of system acceptability. The implications of these results on the development of standards for Low SWAP DAA systems will be discussed.

UAV↗

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 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

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 NTRS2014

Airspace Safety Threshold Study: Status Update to SC-228 DAA Safety Sub-Group

Realization of the expected proliferation of Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations in the National Airspace System (NAS) depends on the development and validation of performance 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 as well as the safety substantiation and end-to-end assessment of DAA system performance. A recent study conducted using NASA's ACES (Airspace Concept Evaluation System) simulation capability begins to address questions surrounding the development of draft MOPS for DAA systems. ACES analyses were conducted to determine: 1) the rate at which IFR aircraft encounter other IFR and VFR aircraft, and 2) the rate at which UAS aircraft encounter VFR aircraft. Five different separation thresholds were used (two for encounter and one each for well-clear, near mid-air collision, and closest point of approach). The results will be used by SC228 to inform decisions about the safety aspect of UAS DAA systems and future requirements development and validation efforts.

Risk ratio↗