Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “DAA MOPS”

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 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 NTRSDate not supplied

DO 365 Test Procedure Results and Analysis Discussion

CAL will leverage M&S tools and existing encounter data to evaluate the robustness of the DAA MOPS Test Procedures. Recently, the SC-147 ACAS-Xu team performed an analysis evaluating the Xu implementation against the DAA MOPS test procedures. Several areas of non-compliance were raised, some indicating shortfalls in our DAA test procedures and/or requirements. The ACAS-Xu team is expected to put out a report highlighting these exemptions. This work will build off that ACAS-Xu analysis/report and perform a full characterization of the statistical test procedures and document the findings. Additionally, CAL will provide recommendations for addressing these findings, potentially resulting in changes to test procedures and/or requirements.

ACAS-Xu↗
NASA NTRS2017

DANTi: Detect and Avoid iN The Cockpit

Mid-air collision risk continues to be a concern for manned aircraft operations, especially near busy non-towered airports. The use of Detect and Avoid (DAA) technologies and draft standards developed for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), either alone or in combination with other collision avoidance technologies, may be useful in mitigating this collision risk for manned aircraft. This paper describes a NASA research effort known as DANTi (DAA iN The Cockpit), including the initial development of the concept of use, a software prototype, and results from initial flight tests conducted with this prototype. The prototype used a single Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B) traffic sensor and the own aircraft's position, track, heading and air data information, along with NASA-developed DAA software to display traffic alerts and maneuver guidance to manned aircraft pilots on a portable tablet device. Initial flight tests with the prototype showed a successful DANTi proof-of-concept, but also demonstrated that the traffic separation parameter set specified in the RTCA SC-228 Phase I DAA MOPS may generate excessive false alerts during traffic pattern operations. Several parameter sets with smaller separation values were also tested in flight, one of which yielded more timely alerts for the maneuvers tested. Results from this study may further inform future DANTi efforts as well as Phase II DAA MOPS development.

Chamberlain, James↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Human-in-the-Loop Evaluation of ACAS Xu

As part of the Phase 2 UAS DAA MOPS, a Class 3 DAA system has been under development with the potential to resolve many of the limitations of Class 1 and 2 systems. A Class 3 system would combine the DAA and CA functions into a single, unified system, and would also extend the CA capabilities relative to TCAS II. Class 3 is enabled by the Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) XU, a next generation CA system developed specifically for UAS operations. Unlike Class 2 systems, ACAS XU provides CA protection against both cooperative and non-cooperative traffic. Class 3 systems also expand the CA logic to allow horizontal RAs in addition to vertical RAs. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate ACAS XU in a real-time, HITL simulation. The latest version of ACAS XU was implemented and pilots were tasked with responding to scripted traffic conflicts over the course of four experimental trials. Variables included the location of the ACAS XU guidance information (standalone vs. integrated) and traffic conflict type (DAA or CA threat). Sixteen active UAS pilots participated in the study, with ATC and ‘pseudo’ pilots acting as airspace confederates. Results showed that pilots were able to maintain DWC with ACAS XU at a rate comparable to previous research (~5%). Compliance rates to initial RAs were high (~90%) but dropped significantly when the target heading value issued during horizontal RAs were updated over the course of an encounter (30-70%). The implications of these findings on the display, alerting, and guidance requirements for Class 3 systems will be discussed.

unmanned aircraft systems↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Human-in-the-Loop Evaluation of ACAS Xu

As part of the Phase 2 UAS DAA MOPS, a Class 3 DAA system has been under development with the potential to resolve many of the limitations of Class 1 and 2 systems. A Class 3 system would combine the DAA and CA functions into a single, unified system, and would also extend the CA capabilities relative to TCAS II. Class 3 is enabled by the Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) XU, a next generation CA system developed specifically for UAS operations. Unlike Class 2 systems, ACAS XU provides CA protection against both cooperative and non-cooperative traffic. Class 3 systems also expand the CA logic to allow horizontal RAs in addition to vertical RAs. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate ACAS XU in a real-time, HITL simulation. The latest version of ACAS XU was implemented and pilots were tasked with responding to scripted traffic conflicts over the course of four experimental trials. Variables included the location of the ACAS XU guidance information (standalone vs. integrated) and traffic conflict type (DAA or CA threat). Sixteen active UAS pilots participated in the study, with ATC and ‘pseudo’ pilots acting as airspace confederates. Results showed that pilots were able to maintain DWC with ACAS XU at a rate comparable to previous research (~5%). Compliance rates to initial RAs were high (~90%) but dropped significantly when the target heading value issued during horizontal RAs were updated over the course of an encounter (30-70%). The implications of these findings on the display, alerting, and guidance requirements for Class 3 systems will be discussed.

unmanned aircraft systems↗
NASA NTRS2020

A Human-in-theLoop Evaluation of ACAS Xu

As part of the Phase 2 UAS DAA MOPS, a Class 3 DAA system has been under development with the potential to resolve many of the limitations of Class 1 and 2 systems. A Class 3 system would combine the DAA and CA functions into a single, unified system, and would also extend the CA capabilities relative to TCAS II. Class 3 is enabled by the Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) XU, a next generation CA system developed specifically for UAS operations. Unlike Class 2 systems, ACAS XU provides CA protection against both cooperative and non-cooperative traffic. Class 3 systems also expand the CA logic to allow horizontal RAs in addition to vertical RAs. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate ACAS XU in a real-time, HITL simulation. The latest version of ACAS XU was implemented and pilots were tasked with responding to scripted traffic conflicts over the course of four experimental trials. Variables included the location of the ACAS XU guidance information (standalone vs. integrated) and traffic conflict type (DAA or CA threat). Sixteen active UAS pilots participated in the study, with ATC and ‘pseudo’ pilots acting as airspace confederates. Results showed that pilots were able to maintain DWC with ACAS XU at a rate comparable to previous research (~5%). Compliance rates to initial RAs were high (~90%) but dropped significantly when the target heading value issued during horizontal RAs were updated over the course of an encounter (30-70%). The implications of these findings on the display, alerting, and guidance requirements for Class 3 systems will be discussed.

unmanned aircraft systems↗
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 NTRS2019

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project: ACAS Xu HITL Overview

This presentation provides an overview of a recently completed human-in-the-loop simulation, conducted as part of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project. This study examined how to present resolution advisories (RAs) issued by Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) Xu, which can be in the vertical dimension, the horizontal dimension, or both (i.e., "blended"). The study varied the location of the ACAS Xu traffic information - it was either presented within an 'integrated' display or a 'standalone' display, where the traffic information was separated from the vehicle control interfaces and navigational information. The presentation covers the test set-up, scenario design, and facilities utilized in this experiment. The primary dependent variables are listed, but no detailed results are included in this outbrief since data analysis is still underway. Goal: assess ACAS Xu Run 5 in a HITL setting to measure pilot & system performance – RWC alerting and guidance – RA alerting and guidance • Horizontal-only, vertical-only, and blended RAs • Strengthening RAs, reversals and added/removed RAs during blended maneuvers – Incorporate realistic sensor noise into the simulation environment – Compare pilot and DAA system performance back to NASA’s Phase 1 DAA MOPS V&V HITL • We leveraged the findings of an engineering analysis conducted in March to help inform how to implement the Xu logic – Part 1 focused on how to display horizontal-only, vertical-only and blended RAs – Part 2 focused on how to display automated RA responses Xu Engineering Analysis Results Part 1 objectives: – Characterize pilot responses to (canned) ACAS Xu RAs in a variety of display configurations • With vs. Without text accompaniment • Simple vs. ‘Advanced’ aural alerting • Results – Pilots struggled to meet 5 seconds initial response requirement • Particularly against horizontal and blended RAs – Pilots failed to respond more quickly to secondary RAs • Expected response time to subsequent RAs = 2.5 seconds No clear effect of the different alerting conditions on response times – Response times primarily driven by RA type • Pilots demonstrated high level of compliance with RAs and self-reported Xu alerting and guidance as being acceptable – 1/5 reported text as being necessary – 4/5 wanted the aural alert to retain the original RA sequence (i.e., issue a follow-on RA second rather than first) – 4/5 wanted to retain the “Maintain Heading/Vertical Speed” aural alert in the event that the pilot reached their target response at the time of secondary RA Based on these results, we decided on the following for the HITL experimental design: – Incorporated an ‘auto-fill’ feature in Vigilant Spirit that removes the need for pilots to manually enter a heading or altitude for RAs • Pilots only have to click ‘Send’ to upload the RA target heading/altitude – Did not include an RA ‘text box’ • The auto-fill feature largely replaces the purpose of the text box – Using a combination of the ‘Basic’ and ‘Advanced’ aural alerting • In case of blended maneuvers will issue “Maintain Heading/Vertical Rate” if pilot has reached 1st RA target at the time the 2nd RA is issued • Integration and testing with Xu Run 5 also resulted in us adding display logic to modify how horizontal RAs are presented – Target heading was shown to update at approx. 1 Hz making it difficult for pilots to implement – Display logic limited horizontal RA strengthening to once every 5 seconds • Did not impact timing of reversals, new RAs (i.e., blended), or CoC Engineering Analysis Results

human systems integration↗
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↗
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 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 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 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↗
NASA NTRS2016

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)↗
NASA NTRS2021

Detect-and-Avoid Surveillance Range Requirements for Electro-Optical/Infra-Red Sensors

A detect-and-avoid (DAA) system provides surveillance, alerting, and maneuver guidance (referred to as guidance in this report) that are critical to an unmanned aircraft system’s (UAS) ability to maintain separation from manned aircraft and other unmanned aircraft. The last decade has seen significant progress in the development of DAA requirements, spearheaded by RTCA Special Committee 228 (SC228) and subsequently by other standards organizations such as EUROCAE and ASTM. SC-228’s development of DAA requirements assumes the UAS follows instrument flight rules (IFR) and has a remote pilot or operator in the loop. As of the publication of this document, the SC-228’s latest Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for DAA, versioned as DO-365B [1], DAA systems use onboard and/or ground surveillance systems to detect traffic. The surveillance systems must detect both cooperative and non-cooperative air traffic. Cooperative traffic are vehicles that have a broadcasting transponder, while non-cooperative traffic do not, and so must be detected via radar or other sensors. A DAA system’s alerting and guidance functions alert the pilot/operator in the loop of potential hazards, such as intruder aircraft, and provide maneuver solutions which help the pilot/operator avoid or mitigate observed hazards. A UAS pilot is expected to coordinate with air traffic control (ATC) before executing a conflict avoidance maneuver if the type of alert is not urgent enough to require an immediate maneuver.

uncrewed aviation systems↗
NASA NTRS2018

Comparative Analysis of ACAS-Xu and DAIDALUS Detect-and-Avoid Systems

The Detect and Avoid (DAA) capability of a recent version (Run 3) of the Airborne Collision Avoidance System-Xu (ACAS-Xu) is measured against that of the Detect and AvoID Alerting Logic for Unmanned Systems (DAIDALUS), a reference algorithm for the Phase 1 Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for DAA. This comparative analysis of the two systems' alerting and horizontal guidance outcomes is conducted through the lens of the Detect and Avoid mission using flight data of scripted encounters from a recent flight test. Results indicate comparable timelines and outcomes between ACAS-Xu's Remain Well Clear alert and guidance and DAIDALUS's corrective alert and guidance, although ACAS-Xu's guidance appears to be more conservative. ACAS-Xu's Collision Avoidance alert and guidance occurs later than DAIDALUS's warning alert and guidance, and overlaps with DAIDALUS's timeline of maneuver to remain Well Clear. Interesting discrepancies between ACAS-Xu's directive guidance and DAIDALUS's "Regain Well Clear" guidance occur in some scenarios.

Davies, Jason T.↗
NASA NTRS2014

ACES Study of DAA-Mitigated UAS Operations SC-228 Requirements Sub Group

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. 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 systems by assessing DAA performance in a NAS-wide context. ACES analyses were conducted to determine the impact of varying elements of UAS pilot performance and uncertainty mitigations on DAA system performance. Simulations were conducted with recorded cooperative and non-cooperative VFR (Visual Flight Rules) traffic to accurately model UAS encounters with other NAS traffic (ATC (Air Traffic Control) being responsible for separation with other IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) aircraft) and with roughly 25, 000 simulated UAS operations The number of Loss of Well Clear (LoWC) events were recorded across the range of independent variables: pilot response time, horizontal LoWC prediction buffer and horizontal LoWC resolution buffer. The number of LoWC events was compared to the unmitigated case (without the benefit of a DAA system) to determine the resultant risk-ratio for each of 8 simulation conditions. The parameter trades presented by the resultant DAA system performance (risk ratio) will be used by SC 228 to inform decisions about future requirements development and validation efforts.

Detect-and-Avoid↗
NASA NTRS2014

Airspace Safety Threshold Study: Status Update to SC-228 DAA Safety Sub-Group

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. 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 systems. ACES analyses were conducted to determine: 1) the rate at which IFR aircraft encounter other IFR and VFR aircraft, and 2) the rate at which UAS aircraft encounter VFR aircraft. Five different separation thresholds were used (two for encounter and one each for well-clear, near mid-air collision, and closest point of approach). The results will be used by SC228 to inform decisions about the safety aspect of UAS DAA systems and future requirements development and validation efforts.

Risk ratio↗