Engineering topics
Publications and source records attributed to Shively, Jay.
This presentation provides an overview of the Detect and Avoid subproject of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project. It discusses efforts and contributions for Phase 1 and on-going work for Phase 2.
NASA is conducting research under the UAS Integration in the NAS Project to develop standards that will enable mid-size and large unmanned aircraft to fly unrestricted in the National Airspace System. As these efforts move into its second phase, NASA is planning a series of flight tests and demonstrations, integrating industry partners' technologies. These events will not only provide valuable data to inform the RTCA Special Committee 228 DAA and C2 MOPS, but also provide an opportunity for the UAS community to test their technologies in a realistic environment. An overview of NASA UAS-NAS research will be presented touching on human systems integration, modeling and simulation and guidance and control. Plans for Flight Test 6 and Systems Integration Operationalization (SIO) will also be presented. The purpose of this meeting is to share with Kitty Hawk, at a high level, UAS-NAS research and discuss potential future collaboration between NASA and Kitty Hawk.
This is a discussion about developing a potential partnership on the topic of detect and avoid.
NASA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project (UAS-NAS) and the UAS Executive Committee (EXCOM) Science and Research Panel (SARP) invite you to attend the 2nd Workshop on Human-Automation Interaction Considerations for UAS Integration. A follow on to the workshop hosted by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, this two-day workshop aims to tackle two critical issues for UAS integration in the NAS being addressed by NASA and the SARP: control of multiple UAS by a single, or multiple, operators (multi-UAS), and automatic collision avoidance (auto-CA). Attendees will be asked to generate real humanautomation architecture and human machine interface solutions for these problems during interactive breakout sessions. Attendance is limited to select government and academia invitees only. This presentation is an overview to the project.
This presentation will cover the structure of the unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) integration into the national airspace system (NAS) project (UAS-NAS Project). The talk also details the motivation of the project to help develop standards for a detect-and-avoid (DAA) system, which is required in order to comply with requirements in manned aviation to see-and-avoid other traffic so as to maintain well clear. The presentation covers accomplishments reached by the project in Phase 1 of the research, and touches on the work to be done in Phase 2. The discussion ends with examples of the display work developed as a result of the Phase 1 research.
This presentation will be given as part of the UAS EXCOM Science and Research Panel's (SARP) workshop on multiple UAS controlled by a single operator. Participants were asked to identify public use cases for multiple UAS control and identify research, policy and technical gaps in those operations. The purpose of this workshop is to brainstorm, categorize and prioritize those use canses and gaps. Here, I will discuss research performed on this topic when I worked for the Army and on-going work within the division and a NATO working group on Human-Autonomy Teaming.
This presentation will be given as part of the UAS EXCOM Science and Research Panel's (SARP) workshop on multiple UAS controlled by a single operator. Participants were asked to identify public use cases for multiple Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) control and identify research, policy, and technical gaps in those operations. The purpose of this workshop is to brainstorm, categorize, and prioritize those use cases and gaps. Here, I will discuss research performed on this topic when I worked for the Army and on-going work within the division and a NATO working group on Human-Autonomy Teaming.
A significant level of debate and confusion has surrounded the meaning of the terms "autonomy" and "automation". Automation is a multi-dimensional concept, and we propose that RPAS automation should be described with reference to the specific system and task that has been automated, the context in which the automation functions, and other relevant dimensions. In this paper, we present a definition of "automation". We recommend that autonomy and autonomous operations are out of the scope of the RPAS panel. WG7 proposes to develop, in consultation with other workgroups, a taxonomy of "Levels of Automation" for RPAS.
Over the past 5 years, the UAS integration into the NAS project has worked to reduce technical barriers to integration. A major focus of this work has been in support of RTCA SC-228. This committee has recently published the first UAS integration minimum performance standards (MOPS). This work has spanned detect and avoid (DAA) as well as command and control comm datalinks. I will discuss DAA efforts with focus on the human systems work. I will discuss how automation was discussed and addressed within this context. ICAO stood up a remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) panel in 2014. They have developed an RPAS manual and are now working to revise existing annexes and standards and recommended practices. The Human In The System (HITS) has worked to infuse human factors guidelines into those documents. I will discuss that effort as well as how ICAO has defined and address autonomy. There is a great deal of interest in the control of multiple vehicles by a single operator. The UAS EXCOM Science and Research Panel (SARP) is holding a workshop on this topic in late June. I will discuss research performed on this topic when I worked for the Army and on-going work within the division and a NATO working group on Human-Autonomy Teaming.
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. The present study is the final in a series of human-in-the-loop experiments designed to explore and test the various display and alerting requirements being incorporated into the minimum operational performance standards (MOPS) for a UAS-specific detect and avoid system that would replace the see and avoid function required of manned aircraft. Two display configurations were tested - an integrated display and a standalone display - and their impact on pilot response times and ability to maintain DAA well clear were compared. Results indicated that the current draft of the MOPS result in high-level performance and did not meaningfully differ by display configuration.
This presentation is a technical update for the NATO-STO HFM-247 working group. Our progress on four goals will be discussed. For Goal 1, a conceptual model of HAT is presented. HAT looks to make automation act as more of a teammate, by having it communicate with human operators in a more human, goal-directed, manner which provides transparency into the reasoning behind automated recommendations and actions. This, in turn, permits more trust in the automation when it is appropriate, and less when it is not, allowing a more targeted supervision of automated functions. For Goal 2, we wanted to test these concepts and principles. We present findings from a recent simulation and describe two in progress. Goal 3 was to develop pattern(s) of HAT solution(s). These were originally presented at HCII 2016 and are reviewed. Goal 4 is to develop a re-usable HAT software agent. This is an ongoing effort to be delivered October 2017.
Automation has entered nearly every aspect of our lives, but it often remains hard to understand. Why is this? Automation is often brittle, requiring constant human oversight to assure it operates as intended. This oversight has become harder as automation has become more complicated. To resolve this problem, Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT) has been proposed. HAT looks to make automation act as more of a teammate, by having it communicate with human operators in a more human, goal-directed, manner which provides transparency into the reasoning behind automated recommendations and actions. This, in turn, permits more trust in the automation when it is appropriate, and less when it is not, allowing a more targeted supervision of automated functions. This paper proposes a framework for HAT, incorporating two key tenets: bi-directional communication, and operator directed authority. We have successfully applied these tenets to integrating the autonomous constrained flight planner (an aide for planning diverts) into a dispatch station. We propose the development of general design patterns that may allow these results to be generalized to domains such as photography and automotive navigation. While these domains are very different, we find application of our HAT tenets provides a number of opportunities for improving interaction between human operators and automation.
This presentation is a review of detect and avoid (DAA) research conducted over the last five years in support of RTCCA SC 228.
A significant level of debate and confusion has surrounded the meaning of the terms autonomy and automation. Automation is a multi-dimensional concept, and we propose that Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) automation should be described with reference to the specific system and task that has been automated, the context in which the automation functions, and other relevant dimensions. In this paper, we present definitions of automation, pilot in the loop, pilot on the loop and pilot out of the loop. We further propose that in future, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) RPAS Panel avoids the use of the terms autonomy and autonomous when referring to automated systems on board RPA. Work Group 7 proposes to develop, in consultation with other workgroups, a taxonomy of Levels of Automation for RPAS.
This presentation describes the development and demonstration of human autonomy teaming technologies for improving aviation safety and efficiency during nominal and off-nominal operations by developing and validating increasingly autonomous systems concepts, technologies, and procedures.
As part of the Air Force - NASA Bi-Annual Research Council Meeting, slides will be presented on phase 1 Detect and Avoid (DAA) display evaluations. A series of iterative human-in-the-loops (HITL) experiments were conducted with different display configurations to objectively measure pilot performance on maintaining well clear. To date, four simulations and two mini-HITLs have been conducted. Data from these experiments have been incorporated into a revised alerting structure and included in the RTCA SC 228 Phase 1 Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) proposal. Plans for phase 2 are briefly discussed.
This is a presentation of the preliminary results on final V and V (Verification and Validation) activity of [RTCA (Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics)] SC (Special Committee)-228 DAA (Detect and Avoid) HMI (Human-Machine Interface) requirements for display alerting and guidance.
This is an invited talk on autonomy and workload for an AFRL Blue Sky workshop sponsored by the Florida Institute for Human Machine Studies. The presentation reviews various metrics of workload and how to move forward with measuring workload in a human-autonomy teaming environment.