Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “DAA Alerting Performance”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2016

FT4 Data Analysis Summary (SSI-ARC)

Standards for Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Detect-and-Avoid (DAA) systems are currently being developed under the auspices of the RTCA Special Committee 228 (SC-228). To support the development of these standards, a series of flight tests has been conducted at NASAs Armstrong Flight Research Center (NASA-AFRC). The fourth in this series of flight test activities (Flight Test 4, or simply FT4) was conducted during the Spring and Summer of 2016. FT4 supported the objectives of numerous organizations working toward UAS DAA Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) and UAS DAA Radar MOPS. The summary provided herein is limited to the objectives, analysis and conclusions of the NASA Ames Research Center (NASA-ARC) SSI team toward the refinement of UAS DAA MOPS. This document provides a high-level overview of FT4 and the SSI-ARC objectives, a summary of the data analysis methodology and recommendations for UAS DAA MOPS refinements based on the data analysis results. A total of 72 encounters were flown to support SSI-ARC objectives. Test results were generally consistent with acceptable UAS DAA system performance and will be considered in broader SC-228 requirements validation efforts. Observed alert lead times indicated acceptable UAS DAA alerting performance. Effective interoperability between the UAS DAA system and the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) was observed with one notable exception: TCAS Resolutions Advisories (RA) were observed in the absence of any DAA alert on two occasions, indicating the need for alert parameter refinement. Findings further indicated the need for continued work in the areas of DAA Well Clear Recovery logic and alert stability for Mode-C-only intruders. Finally, results demonstrated a high level of compliance with a set of evaluation criteria designed to provide anecdotal evidence of acceptable UAS DAA system performance.

UAS Test Flight↗
NASA NTRS2015

Analysis of UAS DAA Alerting in Fast-Time Simulations without DAA Mitigation

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 for DAA alerting 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 alerting systems. ACES simulations were conducted to study the performance of alerting systems proposed by the SC-228 DAA Alerting sub-group. Analysis included but was not limited to: 1) correct alert (and timeliness), 2) false alert (and severity and duration), 3) missed alert, and 4) probability of an alert type at the time of loss of well clear. The performance of DAA alerting systems when using intent vs. dead-reckoning for UAS ownship trajectories was also compared. The results will be used by SC-228 to inform decisions about the surveillance standards of UAS DAA systems and future requirements development and validation efforts.

alerting↗
NASA NTRS2016

NAS-Wide Fast-Time Simulation Study for Evaluating Performance of UAS Detect-and-Avoid Alerting and Guidance Systems

This presentation contains the analysis results of NAS-wide fast-time simulations with UAS and VFR traffic for a single day for evaluating the performance of Detect-and-Avoid (DAA) alerting and guidance systems. This purpose of this study was to help refine and validate MOPS alerting and guidance requirements. In this study, we generated plots of all performance metrics that are specified by RTCA SC-228 Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS): 1) to evaluate the sensitivity of alerting parameters on the performance metrics of each DAA alert type: Preventive, Corrective, and Warning alerts and 2) to evaluate the effect of sensor uncertainty on DAA alerting and guidance performance.

DAA Alerting Performance↗
NASA NTRS2018

Utility of Visual and Auditory Warning Alerting for Traffic Avoidance During UAS Operations

This presentation covers the results of a human-in-the-loop simulation that examined the effect of caution versus warning-level alerting in the context of Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations in civil airspace. Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) are currently being developed by RTCA Special Committee 228 for UAS Detect-and-Avoid (DAA) systems. Input from subject matter experts and multiple research studies have informed display requirements for DAA systems aimed at supporting timely and appropriate pilot responses to collision hazards. DAA alerting is designed to inform pilots of potential threats to DAA "well clear"; the two highest alert levels - caution and warning - indicate how soon pilot action is required and whether there is adequate time to coordinate with the air traffic controller (ATC). Additional empirical support is needed to clarify the extent to which warning-level alerting impacts DAA task performance. The present study explores the differential effects of the auditory and visual cues provided by the DAA Warning alert, and performance implications compared to caution-only alerting are discussed.

detect and avoid↗
NASA NTRS2018

Warning Alert HITL Experiment Results

Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) are being developed to support the integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace (NAS). Input from subject matter experts and multiple research studies have informed display requirements for Detect-and-Avoid (DAA) systems aimed at supporting timely and appropriate pilot responses to collision hazards. Phase 1 DAA MOPS alerting is designed to inform pilots if an avoidance maneuver is necessary; the two highest alert levels - caution and warning - indicate how soon pilot action is required and whether there is adequate time to coordinate with the air traffic controller (ATC). Additional empirical support is needed to clarify the extent to which warning-level alerting impacts DAA task performance. The present study explores the differential effects of the auditory and visual cues provided by the DAA Warning alert, and performance implications compared to caution-only alerting are discussed.

alerting↗
NASA NTRS2016

Evaluating Alerting and Guidance Performance of a UAS Detect-And-Avoid System

A key challenge to the routine, safe operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) is the development of detect-and-avoid (DAA) systems to aid the UAS pilot in remaining "well clear" of nearby aircraft. The goal of this study is to investigate the effect of alerting criteria and pilot response delay on the safety and performance of UAS DAA systems in the context of routine civil UAS operations in the National Airspace System (NAS). A NAS-wide fast-time simulation study was conducted to assess UAS DAA system performance with a large number of encounters and a broad set of DAA alerting and guidance system parameters. Three attributes of the DAA system were controlled as independent variables in the study to conduct trade-off analyses: UAS trajectory prediction method (dead-reckoning vs. intent-based), alerting time threshold (related to predicted time to LoWC), and alerting distance threshold (related to predicted Horizontal Miss Distance, or HMD). A set of metrics, such as the percentage of true positive, false positive, and missed alerts, based on signal detection theory and analysis methods utilizing the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were proposed to evaluate the safety and performance of DAA alerting and guidance systems and aid development of DAA system performance standards. The effect of pilot response delay on the performance of DAA systems was evaluated using a DAA alerting and guidance model and a pilot model developed to support this study. A total of 18 fast-time simulations were conducted with nine different DAA alerting threshold settings and two different trajectory prediction methods, using recorded radar traffic from current Visual Flight Rules (VFR) operations, and supplemented with DAA-equipped UAS traffic based on mission profiles modeling future UAS operations. Results indicate DAA alerting distance threshold has a greater effect on DAA system performance than DAA alerting time threshold or ownship trajectory prediction method. Further analysis on the alert lead time (time in advance of predicted loss of well clear at which a DAA alert is first issued) indicated a strong positive correlation between alert lead time and DAA system performance (i.e. the ability of the UAS pilot to maneuver the unmanned aircraft to remain well clear). While bigger distance thresholds had beneficial effects on alert lead time and missed alert rate, it also generated a higher rate of false alerts. In the design and development of DAA alerting and guidance systems, therefore, the positive and negative effects of false alerts and missed alerts should be carefully considered to achieve acceptable alerting system performance by balancing false and missed alerts. The results and methodology presented in this study are expected to help stakeholders, policymakers and standards committees define the appropriate setting of DAA system parameter thresholds for UAS that ensure safety while minimizing operational impacts to the NAS and equipage requirements for its users before DAA operational performance standards can be finalized.

UAS Detect-and-Avoid (DAA) System↗
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 NTRS2015

Unmitigated ACES Simulation Supporting Draft DAA MOPS Alerting

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 for DAA alerting 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 alerting systems. ACES simulations were conducted to study the performance of an alerting scheme proposed by the SC-228 DAA Alerting sub-group. Analysis included but was not limited to: 1) correct alert (and their timeliness), 2) false alert (and their severity and duration), 3) missed alert, and 4) probability of an alert type at the time of loss of well clear. The results will be used by SC-228 to inform decisions about the alerting aspect of UAS DAA systems and future requirements development and validation efforts.

alerting↗
NASA NTRS2019

Detect-and-Avoid Alerting Performance for High-Speed UAS and Non-Cooperative Aircraft

This paper presents a set of experiments designed to assess the viability of using a smaller Detect and Avoid (DAA) volume for large Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) when they are trying to remain well clear of non-cooperative visual flight rules (VFR) aircraft, in compliance with Federal regulations. The current DAA volume was defined for both cooperative and non-cooperative VFR traffic by the work of RTCA Special Committee 228 in 2017, in what is referred to in this paper as the Phase 1 standards. Subsequent work by the committee has been focused on enabling operations by smaller UAS that cannot carry the heavy radars required for the Phase 1 DAA Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS). The work discussed in this paper will explore whether a Phase 1 UAS using a Phase 1 radar can use the reduced non-cooperative DAA alerting volume being studied for smaller, slower Phase 2 UAS without significantly degrading system safety. The study uses UAS models and background traffic from previous Phase 1 and Phase 2 research to run an unmitigated simulation that will examine alerting performance using different DAA well clear definitions. The primary metrics are also tied to the alerting performance of the DAA system, and include average alerting times, probabilities of missed and late alerts, and the probability of a near mid-air collision given a loss of "well clear," as defined by the DAA system. Results are expected to help RTCA make the determination whether or not the DAA well clear definition for Phase 1 UAS can be reduced for non-cooperative VFR aircraft.

Cone, Andrew C.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Detect-and-Avoid Alerting Performance for High-Speed UAS and Non-Cooperative Aircraft

This paper presents a set of experiments designed to assess the viability of using a smaller Detect and Avoid (DAA) volume for large Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) when they are trying to remain well clear of non-cooperative visual flight rules (VFR) aircraft, in compliance with Federal regulations. The current DAA volume was defined for both cooperative and non-cooperative VFR traffic by the work of RTCA (Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) Special Committee 228 in 2017, in what is referred to in this paper as the Phase 1 standards. Subsequent work by the committee has been focused on enabling operations by smaller UAS that cannot carry the heavy radars required for the Phase 1 DAA Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS). The work discussed in this paper will explore whether a Phase 1 UAS using a Phase 1 radar can use the reduced non-cooperative DAA alerting volume being studied for smaller, slower Phase 2 UAS without significantly degrading system safety. The study uses UAS models and background traffic from previous Phase 1 and Phase 2 research to run an unmitigated simulation that will examine alerting performance using different DAA well clear definitions. The primary metrics are also tied to the alerting performance of the DAA system, and include average alerting times, probabilities of missed and late alerts, and the probability of a near mid-air collision given a loss of "well clear," as defined by the DAA system. Results are expected to help RTCA make the determination whether or not the DAA well clear definition for Phase 1 UAS can be reduced for non-cooperative VFR aircraft.

UAS↗
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 NTRSDate not supplied

UAS Pilot Performance Comparisons with Different Low Size, Weight and Power Sensor Ranges

The present study evaluated the performance of UAS pilots under four simulated low size, weight, and power (SwaP) sensor ranges: 1.5nmi, 2.0nmi, 2.5nmi, and 3.0nmi. Nine active-duty UAS pilots responded to scripted DAA conflicts against non-cooperative intruders while flying a simulated RQ-7 Shadow at varied speeds along a pre-filed flight path in Class E airspace. Findings revealed a linear effect of sensor range on alerting time and separation performance, with nearly every DAA well clear (DWC) violation and all Near Mid-Air Collision (NMAC) events occurring below 2.5nmi. Response time differences at these reduced ranges were negligible due to the high frequency of warning-level alerts that require an immediate response. Since caution alert duration was truncated to some degree by each tested declaration range, pilots were often unable to coordinate their avoidance maneuvers with ATC prior to their uploads. Nonetheless, the 2.5nmi range allowed minimum alerting times that were sufficient for acceptable pilot performance. These findings will inform DAA system requirements for UAS with alternative surveillance equipment and aircraft performance capabilities. Implications on DAA display and sensor requirements are discussed.

unmanned aircraft systems↗
NASA NTRS2020

UAS Pilot Performance Comparisons with Different Low Size, Weight and Power Sensor Ranges

The present study evaluated the performance of UAS pilots under four simulated low size, weight, and power (SwaP) sensor ranges: 1.5nmi, 2.0nmi, 2.5nmi, and 3.0nmi. Nine active-duty UAS pilots responded to scripted DAA conflicts against non-cooperative intruders while flying a simulated RQ-7 Shadow at varied speeds along a pre-filed flight path in Class E airspace. Findings revealed a linear effect of sensor range on alerting time and separation performance, with nearly every DAA well clear (DWC) violation and all Near Mid-Air Collision (NMAC) events occurring below 2.5nmi. Response time differences at these reduced ranges were negligible due to the high frequency of warning-level alerts that require an immediate response. Since caution alert duration was truncated to some degree by each tested declaration range, pilots were often unable to coordinate their avoidance maneuvers with ATC prior to their uploads. Nonetheless, the 2.5nmi range allowed minimum alerting times that were sufficient for acceptable pilot performance. These findings will inform DAA system requirements for UAS with alternative surveillance equipment and aircraft performance capabilities. Implications on DAA display and sensor requirements are discussed.

unmanned aircraft systems↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

UAS Pilot Performance Comparisons with Different Low Size, Weight and Power Sensor Ranges

The present study evaluated the performance of UAS pilots under four simulated low size, weight, and power (SwaP) sensor ranges: 1.5nmi, 2.0nmi, 2.5nmi, and 3.0nmi. Nine active-duty UAS pilots responded to scripted DAA conflicts against non-cooperative intruders while flying a simulated RQ-7 Shadow at varied speeds along a pre-filed flight path in Class E airspace. Findings revealed a linear effect of sensor range on alerting time and separation performance, with nearly every DAA well clear (DWC) violation and all Near Mid-Air Collision (NMAC) events occurring below 2.5nmi. Response time differences at these reduced ranges were negligible due to the high frequency of warning-level alerts that require an immediate response. Since caution alert duration was truncated to some degree by each tested declaration range, pilots were often unable to coordinate their avoidance maneuvers with ATC prior to their uploads. Nonetheless, the 2.5nmi range allowed minimum alerting times that were sufficient for acceptable pilot performance. The study findings will inform DAA system requirements for UAS with alternative surveillance equipment and aircraft performance capabilities. Implications on DAA display and sensor requirements are discussed.

unmanned aircraft systems↗
NASA NTRS2018

An Exploratory Evaluation of UAS Detect and Avoid Operations in the Terminal Environment

New technical standards for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) detect and avoid (DAA) systems mark recent progress toward realizing the goal of full integration of UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS). The DAA system is intended to provide a means of compliance with operating regulations that required pilots on board manned aircraft to remain "well clear" of other aircraft which is accomplished through out-the-window visual acquisition of other aircraft and application of a subjective judgment of safe separation. The requirements for the DAA system, including the specification of a DAA well clear threshold as well as functional requirements for detecting, tracking, alerting and guidance processing, and displays, are specified in DO-365, Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for DAA Systems developed within RTCA Special Committee 228 (SC-228). Intended as the first in a series of phased versions, these requirements are frequently referred to as the "Phase 1" DAA system. The Phase 1 DAA system is limited for use by aircraft transitioning to and from Class A or special use airspace, through Class D, E, and G airspace. In particular, the Phase 1 DAA MOPS are not intended for terminal airspace operations, a critical gap for enabling a full range of UAS operations. The application of the Phase 1 DAA system and DAA well clear threshold within the terminal area is predicted to result in a high number of unnecessary alerts when the UAS is safely separated from other traffic. The goal of the present study was to examine pilot performance and operational issues related to the operation of the Phase 1 DAA system in a terminal area. This experiment was intended as an exploratory study that would be used to inform the development of a new terminal area-specific DAA well clear definition, and associated alerting and guidance requirements. The two main objectives of this study were to: 1) characterize pilot behavior in the terminal environment with the Phase 1 DAA system, and 2) investigate the effect of modifications to the Phase 1 DAA alerting and guidance structure. In particular, the authors were interested in determining whether the removal of specific alerting and guidance levels, without changing the DAA well clear definition or alerting thresholds, would impact pilot performance while conducting terminal operations. The results indicate that the Phase 1 well clear definition and alerting and guidance resulted in frequent alerting that degraded pilots' ability to discriminate between encounters where another aircraft was safely separated versus when a maneuver was necessary. The resulting impact on pilot performance was slower response times and higher frequency and severity of losses of DAA well clear compared to those observed for experiments examining pilot performance in the en route environment. There was no significant effect of alerting and guidance display configuration on pilot performance.

Rorie, Conrad↗
NASA NTRS2018

An Exploratory Evaluation of UAS Detect and Avoid Operations in the Terminal Environment

New technical standards for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) detect and avoid (DAA) systems mark recent progress toward realizing the goal of full integration of UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS). The DAA system is intended to provide a means of compliance with operating regulations that required pilots on board manned aircraft to remain "well clear" of other aircraft which is accomplished through out-the-window visual acquisition of other aircraft and application of a subjective judgment of safe separation. The requirements for the DAA system, including the specification of a DAA well clear threshold as well as functional requirements for detecting, tracking, alerting and guidance processing, and displays, are specified in DO-365, Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for DAA Systems developed within RTCA (Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) Special Committee 228 (SC-228). Intended as the first in a series of phased versions, these requirements are frequently referred to as the "Phase 1" DAA system. The Phase 1 DAA system is limited for use by aircraft transitioning to and from Class A or special use airspace, through Class D, E, and G airspace. In particular, the Phase 1 DAA MOPS are not intended for terminal airspace operations, a critical gap for enabling a full range of UAS operations. The application of the Phase 1 DAA system and DAA well clear threshold within the terminal area is predicted to result in a high number of unnecessary alerts when the UAS is safely separated from other traffic. The goal of the present study was to examine pilot performance and operational issues related to the operation of the Phase 1 DAA system in a terminal area. This experiment was intended as an exploratory study that would be used to inform the development of a new terminal area-specific DAA well clear definition, and associated alerting and guidance requirements. The two main objectives of this study were to: 1) characterize pilot behavior in the terminal environment with the Phase 1 DAA system, and 2) investigate the effect of modifications to the Phase 1 DAA alerting and guidance structure. In particular, the authors were interested in determining whether the removal of specific alerting and guidance levels, without changing the DAA well clear definition or alerting thresholds, would impact pilot performance while conducting terminal operations. The results indicate that the Phase 1 well clear definition and alerting and guidance resulted in frequent alerting that degraded pilots' ability to discriminate between encounters where another aircraft was safely separated versus when a maneuver was necessary. The resulting impact on pilot performance was slower response times and higher frequency and severity of losses of DAA well clear compared to those observed for experiments examining pilot performance in the en route environment. There was no significant effect of alerting and guidance display configuration on pilot performance.

terminal area↗
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↗