UTM Technical Capability Level (TCL) Overview
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
This work proposes a method of compliance to ensure that the collision risks among small unmanned aircraft systems meet the target level of safety. This method presents what is needed for a strategic conflict detection service to achieve the target level of safety when conflict between operational intents are not permitted in nominal situations. A volume-based collision risk model is first developed to calculate the UA-to-UA collision risk given any two operational intent volumes. With this collision risk model, a test strategy is then proposed to assess if a strategic conflict detection service can reduce the collision risk and meet the target level of safety. The method also specifies operational data that are required to be collected to verify if requirements on conformance are being met. Additionally, two new requirements are identified and proposed by this method beyond the current standard for strategic conflict detection. In the sensitivity analysis, three main factors contributing to the collision risk are investigated. The analysis shows that buffers should be considered in a strategic conflict detection service when deconflicting operational intents. The results also reveal that the selection of test cases plays an important role in evaluating the strategic conflict detection service, and they should be representative and sufficiently complex in evaluation tests.
This work proposes a method of compliance to ensure that the collision risks among small unmanned aircraft systems meet the target level of safety. This method presents what is needed for a strategic conflict detection service to achieve the target level of safety when conflict between operational intents are not permitted in nominal situations. A volume-based collision risk model is first developed to calculate the UA-to-UA collision risk given any two operational intent volumes. With this collision risk model, a test strategy is then proposed to assess if a strategic conflict detection service can reduce the collision risk and meet the target level of safety. The method also specifies operational data that are required to be collected to verify if requirements on conformance are being met. Additionally, two new requirements are identified and proposed by this method beyond the current standard for strategic conflict detection. In the sensitivity analysis, three main factors contributing to the collision risk are investigated. The analysis shows that buffers should be considered in a strategic conflict detection service when deconflicting operational intents. The results also reveal that the selection of test cases plays an important role in evaluating the strategic conflict detection service, and they should be representative and sufficiently complex in evaluation tests.
This work proposes a method of compliance to ensure that the collision risks among small unmanned aircraft systems meet the target level of safety. This method presents what is needed for a strategic conflict detection service to achieve the target level of safety when conflict between operational intents are not permitted in nominal situations. A volume-based collision risk model is first developed to calculate the UA-to-UA collision risk given any two operational intent volumes. With this collision risk model, a test strategy is then proposed to assess if a strategic conflict detection service can reduce the collision risk and meet the target level of safety. The method also specifies operational data that are required to be collected to verify if requirements on conformance are being met. Additionally, two new requirements are identified and proposed by this method beyond the current standard for strategic conflict detection. In the sensitivity analysis, three main factors contributing to the collision risk are investigated. The analysis shows that buffers should be considered in a strategic conflict detection service when deconflicting operational intents. The results also reveal that the selection of test cases plays an important role in evaluating the strategic conflict detection service, and they should be representative and sufficiently complex in evaluation tests.
This work presents an analytical approach to address situations in drone operations when strategic coordination alone cannot ensure safety, requiring support from the Conformance Monitoring for Situation Awareness service and potentially other deconfliction services. This study focuses on evaluating the impact of off-nominal operations on both UA-to-UA collision risk and ground injury risk. It first establishes a relationship between the likelihood of off-nominal flights and the effectiveness of strategic coordination. The analysis then derives operational conditions where strategic coordination alone is insufficient to meet target safety requirements, particularly when the likelihood of off-nominal operations exceeds a certain threshold. The results indicate that higher operational tempo or density requires a lower likelihood of offnominal operations for strategic coordination to remain effective and meet safety targets. These findings provide quantitative operational thresholds for when CMSA services are necessary. This work contributes to the safety case for both strategic coordination and CMSA services, offering analysis on when CMSA should be employed to support strategic coordination in achieving the desired safety levels. It also establishes a framework for incorporating other deconfliction services in future safety case analyses.
This work presents an analytical approach to address situations in drone operations when strategic coordination alone cannot ensure safety, requiring support from the Conformance Monitoring for Situation Awareness service and potentially other deconfliction services. This study focuses on evaluating the impact of off-nominal operations on both UA-to-UA collision risk and ground injury risk. It first establishes a relationship between the likelihood of off-nominal flights and the effectiveness of strategic coordination. The analysis then derives operational conditions where strategic coordination alone is insufficient to meet target safety requirements, particularly when the likelihood of off-nominal operations exceeds a certain threshold. The results indicate that higher operational tempo or density requires a lower likelihood of offnominal operations for strategic coordination to remain effective and meet safety targets. These findings provide quantitative operational thresholds for when CMSA services are necessary. This work contributes to the safety case for both strategic coordination and CMSA services, offering analysis on when CMSA should be employed to support strategic coordination in achieving the desired safety levels. It also establishes a framework for incorporating other deconfliction services in future safety case analyses.
Conduct research, development and testing to identify airspace operations requirements to enable large-scale visual and beyond visual line of sight UAS operations in the low-altitude airspace
No abstract available
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The Scalable Traffic Management for Emergency Response Operations (STEReO) project requires prototyping software to extend existing Airspace Operations Laboratory (AOL) software capabilities to support research in integrating drone flight activities within an emergency response airspace environment. A presentation encompassing project AOLUSS details, communications and network design will be presented at a Workshop.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Researchers conducted a usability study using two graphical user interfaces (GUIs) to explore how individuals interpret and interact with different preflight information displays, and to inform the development of Uncrewed Aircraft System (UAS) preflight planning predictive support tools to assess and mitigate flight hazards and risks. A series of preflight risk-assessment tasks were developed to evaluate participant performance using the Supplemental Data Service Provider-Consolidated Dashboard (SDSP-CD) and the Human Automation Team Interface System (HATIS) GUIs. Participants were trained to use both interfaces and their performance was evaluated. These evaluations focused on participants’ preflight planning activities. Objective data on performance tasks across different scenarios involving multi-UASs, as well as self-reports of interactions and subjective experiences using the GUIs were collected. Scores on the system usability scale (SUS) and on a simple task set were examined, as well as user feedback on open-ended questions, to inform development and identify potential improvements to the interfaces.
Researchers conducted a usability study using two graphical user interfaces (GUIs) to explore how individuals interpret and interact with different preflight information displays, and to inform the development of Uncrewed Aircraft System (UAS) preflight planning predictive support tools to assess and mitigate flight hazards and risks. A series of preflight risk-assessment tasks were developed to evaluate participant performance using the Supplemental Data Service Provider-Consolidated Dashboard (SDSP-CD) and the Human Automation Team Interface System (HATIS) GUIs. Participants were trained to use both interfaces and their performance was evaluated. These evaluations focused on participants’ preflight planning activities. Objective data on performance tasks across different scenarios involving multi-UASs, as well as self-reports of interactions and subjective experiences using the GUIs were collected. Scores on the system usability scale (SUS) and on a simple task set were examined, as well as user feedback on open-ended questions, to inform development and identify potential improvements to the interfaces.