SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “HITL simulation”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

116 records · Page 7

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2015

Avionics Configuration Assessment for Flightdeck Interval Management: A Comparison of Avionics and Notification Methods

Flightdeck Interval Management is one of the NextGen operational concepts that FAA is sponsoring to realize requisite National Airspace System (NAS) efficiencies. Interval Management will reduce variability in temporal deviations at a position, and thereby reduce buffers typically applied by controllers - resulting in higher arrival rates, and more efficient operations. Ground software generates a strategic schedule of aircraft pairs. Air Traffic Control (ATC) provides an IM clearance with the IM spacing objective (i.e., the TTF, and at which point to achieve the appropriate spacing from this aircraft) to the IM aircraft. Pilots must dial FIM speeds into the speed window on the Mode Control Panel in a timely manner, and attend to deviations between actual speed and the instantaneous FIM profile speed. Here, the crew is assumed to be operating the aircraft with autothrottles on, with autopilot engaged, and the autoflight system in Vertical Navigation (VNAV) and Lateral Navigation (LNAV); and is responsible for safely flying the aircraft while maintaining situation awareness of their ability to follow FIM speed commands and to achieve the FIM spacing goal. The objective of this study is to examine whether three Notification Methods and four Avionics Conditions affect pilots' performance, ratings on constructs associated with performance (workload, situation awareness), or opinions on acceptability. Three Notification Methods (alternate visual and aural alerts that notified pilots to the onset of a speed target, conformance deviation from the required speed profile, and reminded them if they failed to enter the speed within 10 seconds) were examined. These Notification Methods were: VVV (visuals for all three events), VAV (visuals for all three events, plus an aural for speed conformance deviations), and AAA (visual indications and the same aural to indicate all three of these events). Avionics Conditions were defined by the instrumentation (and location) used to present IM information to crews: (1) Integrated (IM information is embedded in extant PFD (Primary Flight Display), ND (Navigation Display), EICAS (Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System) displays); (2) EFB_Aft (IM information is only supplied in an EFB and mounted in location similar to that for MITRE's UPS work); (3) EFB_Fore (IM information is only supplied in an EFB which is mounted more forward, under the side window), and (4) EFB_Aft plus use of an AGD (the same IM information is supplied in an EFB and on an AGD, both mounted in locations similar to that in MITRE's UPS work ). Twelve commercial pilot crews flew descent scenarios (VNAV Speed with the mode control panel (MCP) speed window open until flaps extended, then VNAV Path) in a commercial transport flight simulator with realistic visual scene and communications. The results of this study serve three practical aims: (1) contribute to the down-select of avionics configuration for future assessment of the ASTAR spacing algorithm at NASA; (2) provide information useful to the FAA Human Factors Division (ANG-C1)'s mission to identify issues pertinent to flight certification of, and flight standards; (3) identify methodological considerations in support of future FIM human-in-the-loop (HITL) investigations.

Latorella, Kara A.↗

NASA NTRS2016

UAS-NAS Project Demo - Mini HITL Week 2 Stats

The UAS-NAS Project demo will showcase recent research efforts to ensure the interoperability between proposed UAS detect and avoid (DAA) human machine interface requirements (developed within RTCA SC-228) and existing collision avoidance displays. Attendees will be able to view the current state of the art of the DAA pilot traffic, alerting and guidance displays integrated with Traffic advisory and Collision Avoidance (TCAS) II in the UAS-NAS Project's research UAS ground control station (developed in partnership with the Air Force Research Laboratory). In addition, attendees will have the opportunity to interact with the research UAS ground control station and "fly" encounters, using the DAA and TCAS II displays to avoid simulated aircraft. The display of the advisories will be hosted on a laptop with an external 30" monitor, running the Vigilant Spirit system. DAA advisories will be generated by the JADEM software tool, connected to the system via the LVC Gateway. A repeater of the primary flight display will be shown on a 55" monitor mounted on a stand at the back of the booth to show the pilot interaction to the passersby.

UAS↗

NASA NTRS2016

AIAA Aviation UAS DAA Demonstration-Mini HITL Week 2 Stats

The UAS-NAS Project demo will showcase recent research efforts to ensure the interoperability between proposed UAS detect and avoid (DAA) human machine interface requirements (developed within RTCA SC-228) and existing collision avoidance displays. Attendees will be able to view the current state of the art of the DAA pilot traffic, alerting and guidance displays integrated with Traffic advisory and Collision Avoidance (TCAS) II in the UAS-NAS Project's research UAS ground control station (developed in partnership with the Air Force Research Laboratory). In addition, attendees will have the opportunity to interact with the research UAS ground control station and "fly" encounters, using the DAA and TCAS II displays to avoid simulated aircraft. The display of the advisories will be hosted on a laptop with an external 30" monitor, running the Vigilant Spririt system. DAA advisories will be generated by the JADEM software tool, connected to the system via the LVC Gateway. A repeater of the primary flight display will be shown on a 55" tv/monitor mounted on a stand at the back of the booth to show the pilot interaction to the passersby.

UAS↗

NASA NTRS2016

Design, Development, and Testing of a UAV Hardware-in-the-Loop Testbed for Aviation and Airspace Prognostics Research

The airspace is becoming more and more complicated, and will continue to do so in the future with the integration of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), autonomy, spacecraft, other forms of aviation technology into the airspace. The new technology and complexity increases the importance and difficulty of safety assurance. Additionally, testing new technologies on complex aviation systems & systems of systems can be very difficult, expensive, and sometimes unsafe in real life scenarios. Prognostic methodology provides an estimate of the health and risks of a component, vehicle, or airspace and knowledge of how that will change over time. That measure is especially useful in safety determination, mission planning, and maintenance scheduling. The developed testbed will be used to validate prediction algorithms for the real-time safety monitoring of the National Airspace System (NAS) and the prediction of unsafe events. The framework injects flight related anomalies related to ground systems, routing, airport congestion, etc. to test and verify algorithms for NAS safety. In our research work, we develop a live, distributed, hardware-in-the-loop testbed for aviation and airspace prognostics along with exploring further research possibilities to verify and validate future algorithms for NAS safety. The testbed integrates virtual aircraft using the X-Plane simulator and X-PlaneConnect toolbox, UAVs using onboard sensors and cellular communications, and hardware in the loop components. In addition, the testbed includes an additional research framework to support and simplify future research activities. It enables safe, accurate, and inexpensive experimentation and research into airspace and vehicle prognosis that would not have been possible otherwise. This paper describes the design, development, and testing of this system. Software reliability, safety and latency are some of the critical design considerations in development of the testbed. Integration of HITL elements in the development phases and veri cation/ validation are key elements to this report.

HITL↗

NASA NTRS2016

Space Suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 2.0 Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) Testing

The space suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 2.0 represents the second integrated prototype developed and tested to mature a design that uses advanced technologies to reduce consumables, improve robustness, and provide additional capabilities over the current state of the art. PLSS 2.0 was developed in 2012, with extensive functional evaluations and system performance testing through mid-2014. In late 2014, PLSS 2.0 was integrated with the Mark III space suit in an ambient laboratory environment to facilitate manned testing, designated PLSS 2.0 Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) testing, in which the PLSS prototype performed the primary life support functions, including suit pressure regulation, ventilation, carbon dioxide control, and cooling of the test subject and PLSS avionics. The intent of this testing was to obtain subjective test subject feedback regarding qualitative aspects of PLSS 2.0 performance such as thermal comfort, sounds, smells, and suit pressure fluctuations due to the cycling carbon dioxide removal system, as well as to collect PLSS performance data over a range of human metabolic rates from 500-3000 Btu/hr. Between October 27 and December 18, 2014, nineteen two-hour simulated EVA test points were conducted in which suited test subjects walked on a treadmill to achieve a target metabolic rate. Six test subjects simulated nominal and emergency EVA conditions with varied test parameters including metabolic rate profile, carbon dioxide removal control mode, cooling water temperature, and Liquid Cooling and Ventilation Garment (state of the art or prototype). The nineteen test points achieved more than 60 hours of test time, with 36 hours accounting for simulated EVA time. The PLSS 2.0 test article performed nominally throughout the test series, confirming design intentions for the advanced PLSS. Test subjects' subjective feedback provided valuable insight into thermal comfort and perceptions of suit pressure fluctuations that will influence future advanced PLSS design and testing strategies.

Watts, Carly↗

NASA NTRS2016

Space Suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 2.0 Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) Testing

Watts, Carly↗

NASA NTRS2019

Exploration of Near-Term Potential Routes and Procedures for Urban Air Mobility

Urban air mobility is gaining interest as the need for On Demand Mobility in today's congested traffic is becoming high in metropolitan areas. Urban Air Mobility (UAM) is envisioned as a concept to transport passengers and cargo safely and efficiently using innovative aircraft in the urban areas. It is expected to improve mobility for the general public, decongest road traffic, reduce transport time and reduce the strain on existing public transport networks. There exist several challenges to Urban Air Mobility (UAM) such as integration of procedures with airspace and the airport, noise levels that are acceptable to the general public, public safety, public acceptance, vehicle certification, and more. Most of the research in the United States and European skies (DLR - German Aerospace Center) related to urban areas has focused on small UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) flights (NASA's UTM (UAS Traffic Management) research) and their integration with the airspace and building safe operations in densely populated areas. Previous studies on UAM have focused on fast time simulations of the routes that are separated via a separation service and network of routes. Similarly, research in Europe has focused on the approach profile for these innovative aircraft, vertiports and battery life among others. UAM as a part of the On-Demand Mobility effort has provided some guidelines for operations as shown below: Does not require additional ATC (Air Traffic Control) infrastructure; Does not impose additional workload on ATC; Does not restrict operations of traditional airspace users; Will meet appropriate safety thresholds and requirements; Will prioritize operational scalability; Will allow flexibility where possible and structure where necessary. This paper explores potential routes and procedures in a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) experiment that could be applied in the near-term to allow integration of UAM flights into the airspace as well as a large airport. The airspace that was explored was Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) airspace managed by the DFW East Tower in South Flow only. In addition, Dallas Love Field (DAL) and Addison (ADS) airspace were also part of the testbed. The initial set of routes investigated in this study were published helicopter routes in the DFW area. Figure 1 shows class B airspace in DFW area and the origin/destination city pairs where UAM flights flew along with helicopter routes shown in blue. The research focused on exploring procedures for integrating UAM flights into Class Bravo and Class Delta airspace. Three different communication procedures, evaluated with three different levels of UAM traffic, are shown in Table 1. The current day routes were evaluated with current day communication procedures were explored as the first condition. The current day routes were also evaluated in the second condition with reduced communications, which was assumed due to the presence of a Letter Of Agreement (LOA). The purpose of the LOA was to reduce the verbiage associated with pilots getting clearance to Class B airspace from the controllers, pre-assigning beacons codes to the UAM flights, separate routes by assigning altitudes and speeds to flights going in any one direction. Flights were expected to automatically change frequency when exiting Class B airspace, thus transition points for entry and exit points were also specified in the LOA.

Urban Air Mobility↗

NASA NTRS2017

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

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

detect and avoid↗