Results for “UAS pilots” — Page 6

NASA NTRS2016

SC-228 Inclusion of DAA Warning Alert for TCAS Interoperability

This white paper summarizes NASA research results that have informed Special Committee 228 (SC-228) discussions and decisions regarding the inclusion of a warning-level alert within the detect and avoid (DAA) alerting structure for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). For UAS, the removal of the pilot from onboard the aircraft has eliminated the ability of the ground-based pilot in command (PIC) to use out-the-window visual information to make judgments about a potential threat of a loss of well clear with another aircraft. As a result, the DAA traffic display will be the primary source of information that the PIC can use to execute the three primary well clear functions: 1) detect a potential loss of well clear, 2) determine a resolution maneuver, and 3) upload that maneuver to the aircraft via the ground control station (GCS). In addition, pilots are required to coordinate with air traffic control (ATC) prior to maneuvering off of their approved flight plan. In determining an appropriate resolution maneuver to avoid a loss of well clear, the PIC must decide both when and how to maneuver, and both the timeliness and the accuracy (i.e., correctness) of the maneuver are critical to reducing the likelihood and/or severity of a loss of well clear. Alerting information is one of three critical components of the DAA display, along with traffic information elements (e.g., relative heading, speed and altitude) and maneuver guidance. Alerting information and maneuver guidance, in particular, have been found to have a significant impact, both statistically and practically, on pilots' ability to avoid and minimize the severity of losses of well clear While all three display components are key to pilots performing the traffic avoidance task of remaining well clear, in general, alerting information provides crucial information about when a resolution maneuver is required while maneuver guidance assists the pilot in determining how best to maneuver. A fundamental task of the DAA alerting system is to provide critical timing information to the pilot about the potential for a loss of well clear with another aircraft. This is done by employing both temporal and spatial thresholds that indicate to the pilot the likelihood and imminence of a loss of well clear. The design of the DAA alerting thresholds is a balancing act between eliciting the desired pilot response in real loss of well clear threat events and reducing excessive, unnecessary, and/or uncoordinated UAS maneuvering within the air traffic environment; larger thresholds, both spatially and temporally, may increase the likelihood of a pilot avoiding a loss of well clear, but it can also increase the frequency of maneuvering - especially in cases where a maneuver is not actually needed to maintain well clear. A series of human in the loop (HITL) simulations have been conducted as part of NASA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) project. The purpose of these HITLs has been to provide empirical results in order to inform development of the minimum human-machine interface requirements for the DAA system. This white paper will present those results which provide evidence of a human performance benefit (in terms of response times and ability to remain well clear of other aircraft) of the DAA warning alert both with and without a collision avoidance system on board the aircraft.

TCAS interoperability↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Display and Automation Considerations for the Airborne Collision Avoidance System Xu

In this paper we examine several display and automation considerations of a collision avoidance system that is currently under development: the Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) Xu. This study builds on previous work conducted as part of NASA’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration into the National Airspace System (NAS) project. ACAS Xu represents the next-generation successor to the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS II), wherein the Xu variant is intended for UAS applications. Whereas TCAS II exclusively issues RAs in the vertical dimension, a major distinction between ACAS Xu and previous collision avoidance (CA) systems is the introduction of horizontal and “blended” RAs (i.e., RAs with both horizontal and vertical components). This present work was conducted as an engineering analysis involving two parts. In Part 1, a two-by-two, within-subjects study was performed that manipulated how RAs were presented to a pilot situated at a UAS ground control station. Five participants experienced four experimental trials in which text and aural alerting characteristics were manipulated. In Part 2, another five participants experienced four trials in which the levels of automation were manipulated with regard to the CA and return-to-course (RTC) tasks. The results for Part 1 found no effect of display or alerting configuration on pilot performance. However, it was discovered that pilot response time to RAs greatly depended on the RA type. In particular, pilots were quicker to respond to vertical RAs (M = 4.52 seconds) than horizontal (M = 7.42 seconds) and blended (M = 9.68 seconds) RAs in which both dimensions were issued simultaneously. For Part 2 of the study, pilots found both auto-CA and auto-RTC functions equally useful. Most pilots were comfortable with the automation, however responses were mixed. Three of five participants indicated high levels of comfort with the auto-CA function, while two rated their comfort as low. Pilots’ comfort for the auto-RTC functionality was slightly higher: four out of five pilots gave high ratings, while one pilot gave a low rating. Overall, pilots ordinally ranked their preference for automated functions as auto-CA together with auto-RTC (when an aural alert announces a change between CA and RTC states), auto-CA, and auto-CA and RTC (without the aural state-change announcement). Recommendations for improving the display of automation are also discussed.

collision avoidance↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Display and Automation Considerations for the Airborne Collision Avoidance System Xu

In this presentation we examine several display and automation considerations of a collision avoidance system that is currently under development: the Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) Xu. This study builds on previous work conducted as part of NASA’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration into the National Airspace System (NAS) project. ACAS Xu represents the next-generation successor to the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS II), wherein the Xu variant is intended for UAS applications. Whereas TCAS II exclusively issues RAs in the vertical dimension, a major distinction between ACAS Xu and previous collision avoidance (CA) systems is the introduction of horizontal and “blended” RAs (i.e., RAs with both horizontal and vertical components). This present work was conducted as an engineering analysis involving two parts. In Part 1, a two-by-two, within-subjects study was performed that manipulated how RAs were presented to a pilot situated at a UAS ground control station. Five participants experienced four experimental trials in which text and aural alerting characteristics were manipulated. In Part 2, another five participants experienced four trials in which the levels of automation were manipulated with regard to the CA and return-to-course (RTC) tasks. The results for Part 1 found no effect of display or alerting configuration on pilot performance. However, it was discovered that pilot response time to RAs greatly depended on the RA type. In particular, pilots were quicker to respond to vertical RAs (M = 4.52 seconds) than horizontal (M = 7.42 seconds) and blended (M = 9.68 seconds) RAs in which both dimensions were issued simultaneously. For Part 2 of the study, pilots found both auto-CA and auto-RTC functions equally useful. Most pilots were comfortable with the automation, however responses were mixed. Three of five participants indicated high levels of comfort with the auto-CA function, while two rated their comfort as low. Pilots’ comfort for the auto-RTC functionality was slightly higher: four out of five pilots gave high ratings, while one pilot gave a low rating. Overall, pilots ordinally ranked their preference for automated functions as auto-CA together with auto-RTC (when an aural alert announces a change between CA and RTC states), auto-CA, and auto-CA and RTC (without the aural state-change announcement). Recommendations for improving the display of automation are also discussed.

collision avoidance↗

NASA NTRS2014

Analysis of Well-Clear Boundary Models for the Integration of UAS in the NAS

The FAA-sponsored Sense and Avoid Workshop for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) defnes the concept of sense and avoid for remote pilots as "the capability of a UAS to remain well clear from and avoid collisions with other airborne traffic." Hence, a rigorous definition of well clear is fundamental to any separation assurance concept for the integration of UAS into civil airspace. This paper presents a family of well-clear boundary models based on the TCAS II Resolution Advisory logic. Analytical techniques are used to study the properties and relationships satisfied by the models. Some of these properties are numerically quantifed using statistical methods.

Upchurch, Jason M.↗

NASA NTRS2014

A Family of Well-Clear Boundary Models for the Integration of UAS in the NAS

The FAA-sponsored Sense and Avoid Workshop for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) defines the concept of sense and avoid for remote pilots as "the capability of a UAS to remain well clear from and avoid collisions with other airborne traffic." Hence, a rigorous definition of well clear is fundamental to any separation assurance concept for the integration of UAS into civil airspace. This paper presents a family of well-clear boundary models based on the TCAS II Resolution Advisory logic. For these models, algorithms that predict well-clear violations along aircraft current trajectories are provided. These algorithms are analogous to conflict detection algorithms but instead of predicting loss of separation, they predict whether well-clear violations will occur during a given lookahead time interval. Analytical techniques are used to study the properties and relationships satisfied by the models.

Munoz, Cesar A.↗

NASA NTRS2016

UAS in the NAS Flight Test Series 4 Overview

Flight Test Series 4 (FT4) provides the researchers with an opportunity to expand on the data collected during the first flight tests. Following Flight Test Series 3, additional scripted encounters with different aircraft performance and sensors will be conducted. FT4 is presently planned for Spring of 2016 to ensure collection of data to support the validation of the final RTCA Phase 1 DAA (Detect and Avoid) Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS). There are three research objectives associated with this goal: Evaluate the performance of the DAA system against cooperative and non-cooperative aircraft encounters Evaluate UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) pilot performance in response to DAA maneuver guidance and alerting with live intruder encounters Evaluate TCAS/DAA (Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System/Detect and Avoid) interoperability. This flight test series will focus on only the Scripted Encounters configuration, supporting the collection of data to validate the interoperability of DAA and collision avoidance algorithms.

flight test↗

NASA NTRS2016

Safety and Certification Considerations for Expanding the Use of UAS in Precision Agriculture

The agricultural community is actively engaged in adopting new technologies such as unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to help assess the condition of crops and develop appropriate treatment plans. In the United States, agricultural use of UAS has largely been limited to small UAS, generally weighing less than 55 lb and operating within the line of sight of a remote pilot. A variety of small UAS are being used to monitor and map crops, while only a few are being used to apply agricultural inputs based on the results of remote sensing. Larger UAS with substantial payload capacity could provide an option for site-specific application of agricultural inputs in a timely fashion, without substantive damage to the crops or soil. A recent study by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) investigated certification requirements needed to enable the use of larger UAS to support the precision agriculture industry. This paper provides a brief introduction to aircraft certification relevant to agricultural UAS, an overview of and results from the NASA study, and a discussion of how those results might affect the precision agriculture community. Specific topics of interest include business model considerations for unmanned aerial applicators and a comparison with current means of variable rate application. The intent of the paper is to inform the precision agriculture community of evolving technologies that will enable broader use of unmanned vehicles to reduce costs, reduce environmental impacts, and enhance yield, especially for specialty crops that are grown on small to medium size farms.

Hayhurst, Kelly J.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Advancing Wildland Fire Response with NASA’s Second Shift Capabilities

Novel “Second-Shift” capabilities—leveraging Uncrewed Aerial Systems and Optionally Piloted Vehicles—are identified that could extend wildfire aerial logistics support into night or low-visibility conditions. Expert elicitations with subject-matter experts informed the development of these conceptual capabilities and identified key challenges in wildfire logistics operations. Furthermore, the potential of these capabilities could extend beyond aerial logistics support, encompassing aerial suppression, observation, and emergency extraction support for wildland firefighting. An approach to development, implementation and validation of the novel capabilities is described.

Wildfire logistics↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Advancing Wildland Fire Response with NASA’s Second Shift Capabilities

Novel “Second-Shift” capabilities—leveraging Uncrewed Aerial Systems and Optionally Piloted Vehicles—are identified that could extend wildfire aerial logistics support into night or low-visibility conditions. Expert elicitations with subject-matter experts informed the development of these conceptual capabilities and identified key challenges in wildfire logistics operations. Furthermore, the potential of these capabilities could extend beyond aerial logistics support, encompassing aerial suppression, observation, and emergency extraction support for wildland firefighting. An approach to development, implementation and validation of the novel capabilities is described.

Wildfire logistics↗

NASA NTRS2012

Concepts of Integration for UAS Operations in the NAS

One of the major challenges facing the integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) is the lack of an onboard pilot that can comply with the legal requirement identified in the US Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that pilots see and avoid other aircraft. UAS will be expected to demonstrate the means to perform the function of see and avoid while preserving the safety level of the airspace and the efficiency of the air traffic system. This paper introduces a Sense and Avoid (SAA) concept for integration of UAS into the NAS that is currently being developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and identifies areas that require additional experimental evaluation to further inform various elements of the concept. The concept design rests on interoperability principles that take into account both the Air Traffic Control (ATC) environment as well as existing systems such as the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS). Specifically, the concept addresses the determination of well clear values that are large enough to avoid issuance of TCAS corrective Resolution Advisories, undue concern by pilots of proximate aircraft and issuance of controller traffic alerts. The concept also addresses appropriate declaration times for projected losses of well clear conditions and maneuvers to regain well clear separation.

Consiglio, Maria C.↗

NASA NTRS2017

The Science of Drones

Drone: the public's term for any flying vehicle that doesn't have a pilot onboard. Unmanned aircraft system (UAS): preferred civil term that emphasizes the drone as a "system". Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV): older but common term, especially in academia. Remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS): the military's most common term for a drone, and probably the most accurate.

Drones↗

NASA NTRS2010

Modeling and Simulation of an UAS Collision Avoidance Systems

This paper describes a Modeling and Simulation of an Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Collision Avoidance System, capable of representing different types of scenarios for UAS collision avoidance. Commercial and military piloted aircraft currently utilize various systems for collision avoidance such as Traffic Alert and Collision A voidance System (TCAS), Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B), Radar and ElectroOptical and Infrared Sensors (EO-IR). The integration of information from these systems is done by the pilot in the aircraft to determine the best course of action. In order to operate optimally in the National Airspace System (NAS) UAS have to work in a similar or equivalent manner to a piloted aircraft by applying the principle of "detect-see and avoid" (DSA) to other air traffic. Hence, we have taken these existing sensor technologies into consideration in order to meet the challenge of researching the modeling and simulation of an approximated DSA system. A Schematic Model for a UAS Collision Avoidance System (CAS) has been developed ina closed loop block diagram for that purpose. We have found that the most suitable software to carry out this task is the Satellite Tool Kit (STK) from Analytical Graphics Inc. (AGI). We have used the Aircraft Mission Modeler (AMM) for modeling and simulation of a scenario where a UAS is placed on a possible collision path with an initial intruder and then with a second intruder, but is able to avoid them by executing a right tum maneuver and then climbing. Radars have also been modeled with specific characteristics for the UAS and both intruders. The software provides analytical, graphical user interfaces and data controlling tools which allow the operator to simulate different conditions. Extensive simulations have been carried out which returned excellent results.

Oliveros, Edgardo V.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Effects of Communication Modality on Pilot-Controller Coordination during a Simulated m:N Operation

The last decade or so has seen growing interest in new control paradigms and concepts of operation for uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) in which multiple aircraft are piloted remotely by a single or relatively small number of people. Referred to as “one-to-many” and “many-to- many” (alternatively, “multi-operator, multi-vehicle”)—and frequently expressed as the corresponding ratios, 1:N and m:N—such novel configurations of aircraft and the people who manage them are seen as critical to the path to future operations involving UAS. Examples of industry domains interested in these control paradigms are small package delivery services utilizing small UAS and passenger-carrying, short-range “Urban Air Mobility” (UAM) operations. Stakeholders in such operations have identified communication and coordination of flight activity with air traffic controllers (ATC) as a barrier to operations. In contrast to present-day flight operations, in which a pilot communicates with one ATC on one radio frequency for one aircraft, multi-vehicle operations potentially entail a significant increase in pilot task load for management of comms. New concepts, such as UAS Service Suppliers (USSs) and Providers of Services to UAM (PSUs), have been proposed to address the known bottleneck for Air Traffic Management (ATM) presented by multi-vehicle operations. While progress has been steadily made over years developing USSs and PSUs, it is generally expected that initial UAM operations will rely on traditional voice-over-radio communication with ATC for purposes of ATM. The current study was a human-in-the-loop simulation that had participants, each possessing a Private Pilot License, act as the ground-based pilot-in- command for multiple vehicles in a hypothetical UAM service in the San Francisco Bay Area. The experiment utilized a 2-by-3, within-subjects design in which the pilot’s Vehicle Load (4 vs. 12) and Comm System (Voice, Datalink, and a Hybrid) were manipulated. The task given to pilots was to use the Comm System to coordinate flight activity for all aircraft with appropriate controllers, having to obtain departure and arrival clearances at “vertiport” facilities and transition clearances for any intermediate airspaces along the route. Pilots were additionally responsible for compliance with vectoring instructions issued by ATC. Subjective workload questionnaires (NASA-TLX) were administered following each experimental trial. Screen recordings of the pilot’s Ground Control Station (GCS) and audio recordings of trials were subsequently coded to obtain performance metrics: response times and error rates. Presented in this paper are results related to pilot responses to vectoring instructions issued by ATC. Workload was found to be significantly higher in the 12-Vehicle condition compared to the 4-Vehicle condition, nearly maxing out the NASA-TLX overall workload scale. There was no significant difference made by the Comm System on workload ratings. Pilots’ response times to communications were fastest in the Voice condition, although overall “service time” for compliance was shorter in Datalink and Hybrid conditions in most cases. Errors by pilots were frequent in both Vehicle Load conditions, most perniciously when using the Voice system. The results of this study suggest tradeoffs in advantages and disadvantages of the three comm systems. Recommendations for communication system design are provided taking the tradeoffs into account.

Garrett G Sadler↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Effects of Communication Modality on Pilot-Controller Coordination during a Simulated m:N Operation

The last decade or so has seen growing interest in new control paradigms and concepts of operation for uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) in which multiple aircraft are piloted remotely by a single or relatively small number of people. Referred to as “one-to-many” and “many-to- many” (alternatively, “multi-operator, multi-vehicle”)—and frequently expressed as the corresponding ratios, 1:N and m:N—such novel configurations of aircraft and the people who manage them are seen as critical to the path to future operations involving UAS. Examples of industry domains interested in these control paradigms are small package delivery services utilizing small UAS and passenger-carrying, short-range “Urban Air Mobility” (UAM) operations. Stakeholders in such operations have identified communication and coordination of flight activity with air traffic controllers (ATC) as a barrier to operations. In contrast to present-day flight operations, in which a pilot communicates with one ATC on one radio frequency for one aircraft, multi-vehicle operations potentially entail a significant increase in pilot task load for management of comms. New concepts, such as UAS Service Suppliers (USSs) and Providers of Services to UAM (PSUs), have been proposed to address the known bottleneck for Air Traffic Management (ATM) presented by multi-vehicle operations. While progress has been steadily made over years developing USSs and PSUs, it is generally expected that initial UAM operations will rely on traditional voice-over-radio communication with ATC for purposes of ATM. The current study was a human-in-the-loop simulation that had participants, each possessing a Private Pilot License, act as the ground-based pilot-in- command for multiple vehicles in a hypothetical UAM service in the San Francisco Bay Area. The experiment utilized a 2-by-3, within-subjects design in which the pilot’s Vehicle Load (4 vs. 12) and Comm System (Voice, Datalink, and a Hybrid) were manipulated. The task given to pilots was to use the Comm System to coordinate flight activity for all aircraft with appropriate controllers, having to obtain departure and arrival clearances at “vertiport” facilities and transition clearances for any intermediate airspaces along the route. Pilots were additionally responsible for compliance with vectoring instructions issued by ATC. Subjective workload questionnaires (NASA-TLX) were administered following each experimental trial. Screen recordings of the pilot’s Ground Control Station (GCS) and audio recordings of trials were subsequently coded to obtain performance metrics: response times and error rates. Presented in this paper are results related to pilot responses to vectoring instructions issued by ATC. Workload was found to be significantly higher in the 12-Vehicle condition compared to the 4-Vehicle condition, nearly maxing out the NASA-TLX overall workload scale. There was no significant difference made by the Comm System on workload ratings. Pilots’ response times to communications were fastest in the Voice condition, although overall “service time” for compliance was shorter in Datalink and Hybrid conditions in most cases. Errors by pilots were frequent in both Vehicle Load conditions, most perniciously when using the Voice system. The results of this study suggest tradeoffs in advantages and disadvantages of the three comm systems. Recommendations for communication system design are provided taking the tradeoffs into account.

urban air mobility↗

NASA NTRS2014

Control and Non-Payload Communications Generation 1 Prototype Radio Flight Test Report

Unmanned aircraft (UA) represent a new capability that will provide a variety of services in the Government (public) and commercial (civil) aviation sectors. The growth of this potential industry has not yet been realized because of the lack of a common understanding of what is required to safely operate Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the National Airspace System (UAS in the NAS). The desire and ability to fly UA is of increasing urgency. The application of UA to perform national security, defense, scientific, and emergency management are driving the critical need for less restrictive access by UA to the NAS. Existing Federal Aviation Regulations, procedures, and technologies do not allow routine UA access to the NAS. Access to the NAS is hampered by challenges such as the lack of an onboard pilot to see and avoid other aircraft; the ability of a single pilot or operator to control multiple UA; the reliance on command and control (C2) links; the altitudes, speeds, and duration at which the aircraft fly; and the wide variation in UA size and performance. NASA is working with other Government agencies to provide solutions that reduce technical barriers and make access to the NAS routine. This goal will be accomplished through system-level integration of key concepts, technologies, or procedures and through demonstrations of these integrated capabilities in an operationally relevant environment. This project provides an opportunity to transition the acquired empirical data and knowledge to the Federal Aviation Administration and other stakeholders to help them define the requirements for routine UA access to the NAS.Radio communications channels for UA are currently managed through exceptions and use either Department of Defense frequencies for line-of-sight (LOS) and satellite-based communications links, low-power LOS links in amateur bands, or unlicensed Industrial/Scientific/Medical (ISM) frequencies. None of these frequency bands are designated for safety and regularity of flight. Only recently has radiofrequency (RF) spectrum been allocated by the International Telecommunications Union specifically for commercial UA C2, LOS communication (L-Band: 960 to 1164 MHz, and C-Band: 5030 to 5091 MHz). The safe and efficient integration of UA into the NAS requires the use of protected RF spectrum allocations and a new data communications system that is both secure and scalable to accommodate the potential growth of these new aircraft. Data communications for UA-referred to as control and non-payload communications (CNPC)-will be used to exchange information between a UA and a ground station (GS) to ensure safe, reliable, and effective UA flight operation. The focus of this effort is on validating and allocating new RF spectrum and data link communications to enable civil UA integration into the NAS. Through a cost-sharing cooperative agreement with Rockwell Collins, Inc., the NASA Glenn Research Center is exploring and performing the necessary development steps to realize a prototype UA CNPC system. These activities include investigating signal waveforms and access techniques, developing representative CNPC radio hardware, and executing relevant testing and validation activities. There is no intent to manufacture the CNPC end product, rather the goals are to study, demonstrate, and validate a typical CNPC system that will allow safe and efficient communications within the L-Band and C-Band spectrum allocations. The system is addressing initial "seed" requirements from RTCA, Inc., Special Committee 203 (SC-203) and is on a path to Federal Aviation Administration certification. This report provides results from the flight testing campaign of the Rockwell Collins Generation 1 prototype radio, referred hereafter as the "radio." The radio sets operate within the 960- to 977-MHz frequency band with both air and ground radios using identical hardware. Flight tests involved one aircraft and one GS. Results include discussion of aircraft flight paths and associated radio performance.

Shalkhauser, Kurt A.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the National Airspace System: A Formal Methods Perspective

As the technological and operational capabilities of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) have grown, so too have international efforts to integrate UAS into civil airspace. However, one of the major concerns that must be addressed in realizing this integration is that of safety. For example, UAS lack an on-board pilot to comply with the legal requirement that pilots see and avoid other aircraft. This requirement has motivated the development of a detect and avoid (DAA) capability for UAS that provides situational awareness and maneuver guidance to UAS operators to aid them in avoiding and remaining well clear of other aircraft in the airspace. The NASA Langley Research Center Formal Methods group has played a fundamental role in the development of this capability. This article gives a selected survey of the formal methods work conducted in support of the development of a DAA concept for UAS. This work includes specification of low-level and high-level functional requirements, formal verification of algorithms, and rigorous validation of software implementations.

Munoz, Cesar A.↗

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 NTRS2012

Varying Levels of Automation on UAS Operator Responses to Traffic Resolution Advisories in Civil Airspace

Continuing demand for the use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) has put increasing pressure on operations in civil airspace. The need to fly UAS in the National Airspace System (NAS) in order to perform missions vital to national security and defense, emergency management, and science is increasing at a rapid pace. In order to ensure safe operations in the NAS, operators of unmanned aircraft, like those of manned aircraft, may be required to maintain separation assurance and avoid loss of separation with other aircraft while performing their mission tasks. This experiment investigated the effects of varying levels of automation on UAS operator performance and workload while responding to conflict resolution instructions provided by the Tactical Collision Avoidance System II (TCAS II) during a UAS mission in high-density airspace. The purpose of this study was not to investigate the safety of using TCAS II on UAS, but rather to examine the effect of automation on the ability of operators to respond to traffic collision alerts. Six licensed pilots were recruited to act as UAS operators for this study. Operators were instructed to follow a specified mission flight path, while maintaining radio contact with Air Traffic Control and responding to TCAS II resolution advisories. Operators flew four, 45 minute, experimental missions with four different levels of automation: Manual, Knobs, Management by Exception, and Fully Automated. All missions included TCAS II Resolution Advisories (RAs) that required operator attention and rerouting. Operator compliance and reaction time to RAs was measured, and post-run NASA-TLX ratings were collected to measure workload. Results showed significantly higher compliance rates, faster responses to TCAS II alerts, as well as less preemptive operator actions when higher levels of automation are implemented. Physical and Temporal ratings of workload were significantly higher in the Manual condition than in the Management by Exception and Fully Automated conditions.

Kenny, Caitlin↗