Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “UAS NAS Integration”

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.

At least 163 records · Page 9

Human-In-The-Loop Experimental Research for Detect and Avoid

This paper describes a Detect and Avoid (DAA) concept for integration of UAS into the NAS developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and provides results from recent human-in-the-loop experiments performed to investigate interoperability and acceptability issues associated with these vehicles and operations. The series of experiments was designed to incrementally assess critical elements of the new concept and the enabling technologies that will be required.

Consiglio, Maria↗

Understanding Community Needs and Desires

This panel exchange is focused on the Integration Test phase within the development lifecycle with special emphasis and dedicated discussion on integration and testing of complex systems. Layout and scheduling of integration tasks come from the verification of interface and performance requirements. However, planning for integration activities of complex systems is inherently different from traditional systems engineering integration planning activities. Decisions about the systems under development have to consider not only the technical and programmatic viewpoints but also the political, societal, operational, and economic viewpoints. Definition of performance measures, found intrinsic in the plan, with trans-disciplinary implications will be discussed. A scenario of integration of UAS in the NAS will be used as a benchmark of current views and lifecycle challenges.

Murphy, James R.↗

UAS-NAS NASA 870 Ikhana UAS No Chase COA (NCC) Flights, Flight Test Report

This document is a flight test report from the operational perspective for the No Chase Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) flights, or NCC flights, a major milestone of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) project. Discussions of a demonstration event began as early as 2014 and the actual flight of the Ikhana UAS into the NAS without a safety chase vehicle in Class A, E, and D airspace was accomplished on 12 June, 2018. The major goal of this flight was to demonstrate an alternate means of compliance to the see and avoid regulations for a UAS using Detect and Avoid (DAA) technology. Participants in this flight activity and planning included the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Ames Research Center, NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI), Honeywell International, Inc., and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Marston, Mike↗

Proposal for a Sample Pilot Response Model

Regulations to establish operational and performance requirements for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are being developed by a consortium of government, industry and academic institutions. Those requirements will apply to the new detect and avoid (DAA) systems and other equipment necessary to integrate UAS with the National Airspace System (NAS) and are determined according to their contribution to the overall safety case for such an integration. In order to perform end-to-end verification and validation of DAA requirements, a committee accepted pilot response model is needed to emulate UAS pilots in closed-loop Monte Carlo fast-time simulations. This briefing focuses on background of the pilot model used in previous Airspace Concept Evaluation System studies, identification of strengths and weaknesses in that model, and proposals on model improvements. The briefing also looks to build consensus around a common architecture and assumptions for modeling the pilot for UAS DAA systems.

Santiago, Confesor↗

UAS Research - Who's Doing What?

This presentation includes the UAS-Enabled Market Categories used in Study, as well as the reason for the UAS-NAS NO Chase COA flight. It discusses the transitioning of a UA from different airspaces. UAS Integration is a community wide effort, and the FAA Symposium provides attendees with the opportunity to engage face-to-face with a cross-section of government and industry leaders and innovators about the latest industry developments, regulations, research, and other initiatives to safely integrate UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS).

conference↗

Requirements for an Integrated UAS CNS Architecture

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Glenn Research Center (GRC) is investigating revolutionary and advanced universal, reliable, always available, cyber secure and affordable Communication, Navigation, Surveillance (CNS) options for all altitudes of UAS operations. In Spring 2015, NASA issued a Call for Proposals under NASA Research Announcements (NRA) NNH15ZEA001N, Amendment 7 Subtopic 2.4. Boeing was selected to conduct a study with the objective to determine the most promising candidate technologies for Unmanned Air Systems (UAS) air-to-air and air-to-ground data exchange and analyze their suitability in a post-NextGen NAS environment. The overall objectives are to develop UAS CNS requirements and then develop architectures that satisfy the requirements for UAS in both controlled and uncontrolled air space. This contract is funded under NASAs Aeronautics Research Mission Directorates (ARMD) Aviation Operations and Safety Program (AOSP) Safe Autonomous Systems Operations (SASO) project and proposes technologies for the Unmanned Air Systems Traffic Management (UTM) service. Communications, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS) requirements must be developed in order to establish a CNS architecture supporting Unmanned Air Systems integration in the National Air Space (UAS in the NAS). These requirements must address cybersecurity, future communications, satellite-based navigation APNT, and scalable surveillance and situational awareness. CNS integration, consolidation and miniaturization requirements are also important to support the explosive growth in small UAS deployment. Air Traffic Management (ATM) must also be accommodated to support critical Command and Control (C2) for Air Traffic Controllers (ATC). This document therefore presents UAS CNS requirements that will guide the architecture.

Templin, Fred↗

Argument-Based Airworthiness Assurance of Small UAS

Presently, there are three avenues by which Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations are authorized in the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS): obtaining either (i) a certificate of authorization (COA), or (ii) a special airworthiness certificate (SAC) in either the experimental, or the restricted category, or (iii) an exemption from an airworthiness certificate together with a civil COA. The first is meant primarily for public entities, such as NASA; the remaining two are the only available means for civil UAS operations. Recently, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has also proposed a regulatory framework targeted for certain small UAS, specifically those weighing 55 pounds or less, although final rulemaking remains pending. We have previously shown how an assurance case can aggregate heterogeneous reasoning and safety evidence, with application to UAS safety. In this paper, we describe how assurance cases can serve as a common framework to justify overall system safety, unifying both operational aspects and airworthiness, in particular system design assurance. We also show how this approach can coexist with, and augment, existing safety analysis processes and best-practices, by transforming the artifacts they produce into structured assurance arguments. To illustrate the applicability and utility of our approach, we have been applying it for the design assurance of an unmanned rotorcraft system, intended for precision agriculture operations, as part of the NASA Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) project.

Rotocraft↗

NASA ACES V&V Alignment Briefing

Regulations to establish operational and performance requirements for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are being developed by a consortium of government, industry and academic institutions. Those requirements will apply to the new detect and avoid (DAA) systems and other equipment necessary to integrate UAS with the National Airspace System (NAS) and are determined according to their contribution to the overall safety case for such an integration. This briefing focuses on providing an overview of the Airspace Concept Evaluation System (ACES) platform, review of detect-and-avoid models incorprated in ACES, sumamry of two planned ACES studies, and a way forward to impact the SC-228 VV plan.

Santiago, Confesor↗

Security Risk Assessment Process for UAS in the NAS CNPC Architecture

This informational paper discusses the risk assessment process conducted to analyze Control and Non-Payload Communications (CNPC) architectures for integrating civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS). The assessment employs the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Risk Management framework to identify threats, vulnerabilities, and risks to these architectures and recommends corresponding mitigating security controls. This process builds upon earlier work performed by RTCA Special Committee (SC) 203 and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to roadmap the risk assessment methodology and to identify categories of information security risks that pose a significant impact to aeronautical communications systems. A description of the deviations from the typical process is described in regards to this aeronautical communications system. Due to the sensitive nature of the information, data resulting from the risk assessment pertaining to threats, vulnerabilities, and risks is beyond the scope of this paper

data links↗

Security Risk Assessment Process for UAS in the NAS CNPC Architecture

This informational paper discusses the risk assessment process conducted to analyze Control and Non-Payload Communications (CNPC) architectures for integrating civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS). The assessment employs the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Risk Management framework to identify threats, vulnerabilities, and risks to these architectures and recommends corresponding mitigating security controls. This process builds upon earlier work performed by RTCA Special Committee (SC) 203 and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to roadmap the risk assessment methodology and to identify categories of information security risks that pose a significant impact to aeronautical communications systems. A description of the deviations from the typical process is described in regards to this aeronautical communications system. Due to the sensitive nature of the information, data resulting from the risk assessment pertaining to threats, vulnerabilities, and risks is beyond the scope of this paper.

Iannicca, Dennis C.↗

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↗

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↗

Flight Test Series 3: Flight Test Report

This document is a flight test report from the Operational perspective for Flight Test Series 3, a subpart of the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) project. Flight Test Series 3 testing began on June 15, 2015, and concluded on August 12, 2015. Participants included NASA Ames Research Center, NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center, NASA Glenn Research Center, NASA Langley Research center, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., and Honeywell. Key stakeholders analyzed their System Under Test (SUT) in two distinct configurations. Configuration 1, known as Pairwise Encounters, was subdivided into two parts: 1a, involving a low-speed UAS ownship and intruder(s), and 1b, involving a high-speed surrogate ownship and intruder. Configuration 2, known as Full Mission, involved a surrogate ownship, live intruder(s), and integrated virtual traffic. Table 1 is a summary of flights for each configuration, with data collection flights highlighted in green. Section 2 and 3 of this report give an in-depth description of the flight test period, aircraft involved, flight crew, and mission team. Overall, Flight Test 3 gathered excellent data for each SUT. We attribute this successful outcome in large part from the experience that was acquired from the ACAS Xu SS flight test flown in December 2014. Configuration 1 was a tremendous success, thanks to the training, member participation, integration/testing, and in-depth analysis of the flight points. Although Configuration 2 flights were cancelled after 3 data collection flights due to various problems, the lessons learned from this will help the UAS in the NAS project move forward successfully in future flight phases.

Unmanned↗

Requirements for an Integrated UAS CNS Architecture

Communications, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS) requirements must be developed in order to establish a CNS architecture supporting Unmanned Air Systems integration in the National Air Space (UAS in the NAS). These requirements must address cybersecurity, future communications, satellite-based navigation and APNT, and scalable surveillance and situational awareness. CNS integration, consolidation and miniaturization requirements are also important to support the explosive growth in small UAS deployment. Air Traffic Management (ATM) must also be accommodated to support critical Command and Control (C2) for Air Traffic Controllers (ATC). This document therefore presents UAS CNS requirements that will guide the architecture.

Templin, Fred L.↗

Flight Test 4 Preliminary Results: NASA Ames SSI

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. The Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Integration into the National Airspace System (NAS) Project conducted flight test program, referred to as Flight Test 4, at Armstrong Flight Research Center from April -June 2016. Part of the test flights were dedicated to the NASA Ames-developed Detect and Avoid (DAA) System referred to as JADEM (Java Architecture for DAA Extensibility and Modeling). The encounter scenarios, which involved NASA's Ikhana UAS and a manned intruder aircraft, were designed to collect data on DAA system performance in real-world conditions and uncertainties with four different surveillance sensor systems. Flight test 4 has four objectives: (1) validate DAA requirements in stressing cases that drive MOPS requirements, including: high-speed cooperative intruder, low-speed non-cooperative intruder, high vertical closure rate encounter, and Mode CS-only intruder (i.e. without ADS-B), (2) validate TCASDAA alerting and guidance interoperability concept in the presence of realistic sensor, tracking and navigational errors and in multiple-intruder encounters against both cooperative and non-cooperative intruders, (3) validate Well Clear Recovery guidance in the presence of realistic sensor, tracking and navigational errors, and (4) validate DAA alerting and guidance requirements in the presence of realistic sensor, tracking and navigational errors. The results will be presented at RTCA Special Committee 228 in support of final verification and validation of the DAA MOPS.

Detect-And-Avoid (DAA)↗

Live Virtual Constructive Distributed Test Environment Characterization Report

This report documents message latencies observed over various Live, Virtual, Constructive, (LVC) simulation environment configurations designed to emulate possible system architectures for the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project integrated tests. For each configuration, four scenarios with progressively increasing air traffic loads were used to determine system throughput and bandwidth impacts on message latency.

UAS↗

Appendix A: NAS-Wide Encounter Rate Evaluation Using Historical Radar Data and the Airspace Concept Evaluation System (ACES)

Regulations that establish operational and performance requirements for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are being developed by a consortium of government, industry and academic institutions. Those requirements will apply to detect-and-avoid (DAA) systems and other equipment necessary to integrate UAS with the National Airspace System (NAS) and are determined according to their contribution to the overall level of safety required to operate in the airspace. Several key gaps must be addressed in order to link equipment requirements to an airspace level of safety. Foremost among these is the calculation of the relative effectiveness of a particular system to mitigate violations of a separation standard with other aircraft, which is known as the systems risk ratio. The risk ratio is calculated as the probability of mid-air collision with a DAA system divided by the probability of mid-air collision without a DAA system. The risk ratio of a DAA system, in combination with the risk ratios of other collision avoidance mitigations, will determine the overall safety of the airspace measured in terms of the number of mid-air collisions per flight hour. Defining the required risk ratio that the DAA system needs to ensure the safety of the airspace requires an evaluation of the current airspace and a simulated evaluation that incorporates UAS aerodynamic performance and the mission characteristics of future UAS operations that are projected to be conducted in areas that interact with current operations. These evaluations will produce the frequency of encounters that currently exist in the airspace and those that could be generated with the introduction of UAS. Together, the frequency of encounters, an evaluation of unmitigated risk of collision, and a desired level of safety of the airspace will yield a required risk ratio of the DAA system. This study will focus on evaluating the encounter rates between aircraft based on historical radar data and encounter rates that could occur based on simulated UAS missions.

Unmanned Aircraft Systems↗