Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “detect and avoid”

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 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2016

UAS Pilot Evaluations of Suggestive Guidance on Detect-and-Avoid Displays

Minimum display requirements for Detect-and-Avoid (DAA) systems are being developed in order to support the expansion of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS). The present study examines UAS pilots' subjective assessments of four DAA display configurations with varying forms of maneuver guidance. For each configuration, pilots rated the intuitiveness of the display and how well it supported their ability to perform the DAA task. Responses revealed a clear preference for the DAA displays that presented suggestive maneuver guidance in the form of "banding" compared to an Information Only display, which lacked any maneuver guidance. Implications on DAA display requirements, as well as the relation between the subjective evaluations and the objective performance data from previous studies are discussed.

unmanned aircraft systems↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assistive Detect and Avoid Technology in Urban Air Mobility Environments

The use of Assistive Detect and Avoid (Assistive DAA or ADAA) technology in Urban Air Mobility (UAM) environments poses potential benefits as well as challenges. Assistive DAA refers to the leveraged use of DAA technology, originally developed to replace see-and-avoid capabilities for remotely piloted aircraft, in onboard-piloted aircraft to augment (rather than replace) pilots’ see-and-avoid abilities and thus enhance the safety and efficiency of visual flight operations. ADAA is anticipated to be especially safety-enhancing in airspace where traffic density is high or traditional air traffic services are limited, such as in future UAM environments. ADAA may also enable higher-tempo UAM operations than with only see-and-avoid capabilities, while still maintaining acceptable levels of safety. UAM concepts under development by the FAA, NASA, and industry focus on operations moving people and cargo in urban and suburban areas using innovative technologies, operations, and aircraft, including electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft. Researchers at NASA Langley Research Center, in collaboration with FAA researchers at the William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City, NJ, have conducted a series of medium-fidelity, human-in-the-loop research simulations of potential future UAM operations and concepts in both Class C and Class B airspace environments. These simulations have included use of a Langley-developed ADAA research tool called DANTi, which enables configurable ADAA displays to be presented to pilots of simulated eVTOL aircraft participating in higher-density and higher-tempo UAM operations. Experience and observations made during testing of the NASA-developed DANTi ADAA capability in the UAM NFLITE simulation environment will be reported in this paper together with a discussion of airspace integration and regulatory topics.

Detect and Avoid↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assistive Detect and Avoid Technology in Urban Air Mobility Environments

The use of Assistive Detect and Avoid (Assistive DAA or ADAA) technology in Urban Air Mobility (UAM) environments poses potential benefits as well as challenges. Assistive DAA refers to the leveraged use of DAA technology, originally developed to replace see-and-avoid capabilities for remotely piloted aircraft, in onboard-piloted aircraft to augment (rather than replace) pilots’ see-and-avoid abilities and thus enhance the safety and efficiency of visual flight operations. ADAA is anticipated to be especially safety-enhancing in airspace where traffic density is high or traditional air traffic services are limited, such as in future UAM environments. ADAA may also enable higher-tempo UAM operations than with only see-and-avoid capabilities, while still maintaining acceptable levels of safety. UAM concepts under development by the FAA, NASA, and industry focus on operations moving people and cargo in urban and suburban areas using innovative technologies, operations, and aircraft, including electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft. Researchers at NASA Langley Research Center, in collaboration with FAA researchers at the William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City, NJ, have conducted a series of medium-fidelity, human-in-the-loop research simulations of potential future UAM operations and concepts in both Class C and Class B airspace environments. These simulations have included use of a Langley-developed ADAA research tool called DANTi, which enables configurable ADAA displays to be presented to pilots of simulated eVTOL aircraft participating in higher-density and higher-tempo UAM operations. Experience and observations made during testing of the NASA-developed DANTi ADAA capability in the UAM NFLITE simulation environment will be reported in this paper together with a discussion of airspace integration and regulatory topics.

Detect and Avoid↗
NASA NTRS2021

Evaluation of Sensor Uncertainty Mitigation Methods for Detect-and-Avoid Systems

The impact of sensor noise on the performance of Detect-And-Avoid (DAA) systems can be reduced by implementing various mitigation schemes. This paper evaluates two such methods. One of them is the Sensor Uncertainty Mitigation (SUM) method, implemented in the Detect and Avoid Alerting Logic for Unmanned Systems (DAIDALUS) algorithm, a reference implementation in the DAA minimum operational performance standards. The second method is the Virtual Intruder State Aggregation (VISA), which averages multiple subsequent intruder states extrapolated to the current (most recent) time into a single ``aggregated`` intruder state. The VISA method can be used either individually as a sensor noise mitigation method in its own right, or in combination with DAIDALUS SUM. The performance of these methods is evaluated using three safety and operational suitability metrics and compared with a baseline configuration using static safety buffers. A large number of encounters representative of low-speed unmanned aircraft against non-cooperative manned aircraft, not equipped with a broadcasting transponder or ADS-B out system, are simulated and evaluated. An air-to-air radar model produces representative sensor noise for the DAA system. Results show that increasing the DAIDALUS SUM parameters for horizontal and vertical uncertainty improves the safety metric at the cost of increasing the number of actionable alerts leading to increased workload. A range of SUM parameters is recommended as suitable values for the type of operations considered for this work. VISA was found to be almost as effective as other noise mitigation methods even when it was used alone. Combining VISA with DAIDALUS SUM achieved the best performance among all investigated methods used with DAIDALUS. General trends and optimal SUM configurations were found to be nearly the same for two large and very different encounter data sets.

Detect-and-Avoid Systems↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Detect and Avoid and Collision Avoidance Flight Test Results with ACAS Xr

In October 2023, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) completed its Integration of Automated Systems flight test series, conducted under NASA’s Advanced Air Mobility project and in partnership with Sikorsky and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The flight test effort included two crewed rotorcraft platforms. The first, a modified S-76B helicopter, served as the “ownship” for the duration of the flight test. The second vehicle, a modified S-70, served as the intruder aircraft. One Sikorsky pilot and one NASA test pilot was onboard each aircraft for every test point, with the NASA test pilot responsible for interacting with the research systems under test. Approximately half of the flight test was devoted to assessing the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) next-generation collision avoidance system, the Airborne Collision Avoidance System X for Rotorcraft (ACAS Xr). The two configurations available within ACAS Xr – the Collision Avoidance System (CAS) configuration and the Detect and Avoid (DAA) configuration – were flown with an onboard pilot under Visual Flight Rules in controlled airspace over the Long Island Sound (Connecticut, USA). A total of 33 flight test cards were flown with ACAS Xr active. The ownship was equipped with ACAS Xr and the intruder was equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B). The test points were blocked by ACAS Xr configuration, with individual encounters varying the ownship speed (90 knots or 20 knots), the intruder designation (en-route, terminal area, or structured airspace), and method of RA execution (automated or manually executed). Results showed that the ACAS Xr alerting and guidance was largely effective and rated positively by the NASA test pilots, exemplified by zero instances of the pilots overriding an ACAS Xr Resolution Advisory (RA). Key areas of improvement, however, were noted, particularly with regards to the lack of an aural alert indicating a need to accelerate when receiving an RA at low speed and the occurrence of multiple RAs that the pilots found to be unacceptable.

detect and avoid↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Detect and Avoid and Collision Avoidance Flight Test Results with ACAS Xr

In October 2023, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) completed its Integration of Automated Systems flight test series, conducted under NASA’s Advanced Air Mobility project and in partnership with Sikorsky and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The flight test effort included two crewed rotorcraft platforms. The first, a modified S-76B helicopter, served as the “ownship” for the duration of the flight test. The second vehicle, a modified S-70, served as the intruder aircraft. One Sikorsky pilot and one NASA test pilot was onboard each aircraft for every test point, with the NASA test pilot responsible for interacting with the research systems under test. Approximately half of the flight test was devoted to assessing the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) next-generation collision avoidance system, the Airborne Collision Avoidance System X for Rotorcraft (ACAS Xr). The two configurations available within ACAS Xr – the Collision Avoidance System (CAS) configuration and the Detect and Avoid (DAA) configuration – were flown with an onboard pilot under Visual Flight Rules in controlled airspace over the Long Island Sound (Connecticut, USA). A total of 33 flight test cards were flown with ACAS Xr active. The ownship was equipped with ACAS Xr and the intruder was equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B). The test points were blocked by ACAS Xr configuration, with individual encounters varying the ownship speed (90 knots or 20 knots), the intruder designation (en-route, terminal area, or structured airspace), and method of RA execution (automated or manually executed). Results showed that the ACAS Xr alerting and guidance was largely effective and rated positively by the NASA test pilots, exemplified by zero instances of the pilots overriding an ACAS Xr Resolution Advisory (RA). Key areas of improvement, however, were noted, particularly with regards to the lack of an aural alert indicating a need to accelerate when receiving an RA at low speed and the occurrence of multiple RAs that the pilots found to be unacceptable.

detect and avoid↗
NASA NTRS2017

Ensuring Interoperability between UAS Detect-and-Avoid and Manned Aircraft Collision Avoidance

The UAS community in the United States has identified the need for a collision avoidance region in which UAS Detect-and-Avoid (DAA) vertical guidance is restricted to preclude interoperability issues with manned aircraft collision avoidance system vertical resolution advisories (RAs). This paper documents the process by which the collision avoidance region was defined. Three candidate definitions were evaluated on 1.3 million simulated pairwise encounters between UAS and manned aircraft covering a wide range of horizontal and vertical closure rates, angles, and miss distances. They were evaluated with regard to UAS DAA interoperability with manned aircraft collision avoidance systems in terms of: 1) the primary objective of restricting DAA vertical guidance before RAs when the aircraft are close, and 2) the secondary objective of avoiding unnecessary restrictions of DAA vertical guidance at a DAA alert when the aircraft are further apart. The collision avoidance region definition that fully achieves the primary objective and best achieves the secondary objective was recommended to and accepted by the UAS community in the United States. By this definition, UAS and manned aircraft are in the collision avoidance region--during which DAA vertical guidance is restricted--when the time to closest point of approach is less than 50 seconds and either the time to co-altitude is less than 50 seconds or the current vertical separation is less than 800 feet.

collision avoidance↗
NASA NTRS2017

Ensuring Interoperability Between Unmanned Aircraft Detect-and-Avoid and Manned Aircraft Collision Avoidance

The Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) community in the United States has identified the need for a collision avoidance region in which UAS Detect-and-Avoid (DAA) vertical guidance is restricted to preclude interoperability issues with manned aircraft collision avoidance system vertical resolution advisories (RAs). This paper documents the process by which the collision avoidance region was defined. Three candidate definitions were evaluated on 1.3 million simulated pairwise encounters between UAS and manned aircraft covering a wide range of horizontal and vertical closure rates, angles, and miss distances. Each definition was evaluated with regard to UAS DAA interoperability with manned aircraft collision avoidance in terms of how well it achieved: 1) the primary objective of restricting DAA vertical guidance prior to RAs when the aircraft are close, and 2) the secondary objective of avoiding unnecessary restrictions of DAA vertical guidance at DAA alerts when the aircraft are further apart. The collision avoidance region definition that fully achieves the primary objective and best achieves the secondary objective was recommended to and accepted by the UAS community in the United States. By this definition, UAS and manned aircraft are in the collision avoidance region where DAA vertical guidance is restricted when the time to closest point of approach (CPA) is less than 50 seconds and either the time to co-altitude is less than 50 seconds or the current vertical separation is less than 800 feet.

unmanned aircraft systems; collision avoidance; in↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Impact of Airborne Radar Uncertainties on Detect-and-Avoid Systems’ Performance

Impact of sensor uncertainty on Detect-and-Avoid (DAA) systems’ performance is investigated. Key metrics analyzed are the loss of DAA well clear ratio, the near-mid-air-collision risk ratio, the alert ratio, and the number of maneuvers per loss of DAA well clear. Sensitivity of these metrics to the magnitude of sensor uncertainty, pilots’ selection of maneuver, and surveillance range is investigated. Benefits of a dynamic buffer around the DAA well clear separation boundary, computed based on track accuracies, are also analyzed. These metrics are computed from open- and closed-loop simulations of a large number of representative encounters between an unmanned aircraft system and a manned aircraft. Results show that sensor uncertainty degrades safety metrics considerably but has only a minor effect on the number of maneuvers per loss of DAA well clear. The number of maneuvers, nonetheless, can be reduced by a 5◦ buffer away from the edge of the range of conflict-resulting heading in pilots’ selection of maneuver.

UAS↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Detect-and-Avoid Maneuver Planning: Benefits of Including Route Recapture

Development of Detect-and-avoid (DAA) systems’ maneuver guidance requirements at RTCA has centered on tactical maneuvers away from the intruder. Recapturing the flight-plan route the initial maneuver is not directly taken into account by most DAA maneuver guidance algorithms. This work demonstrates potential challenges and inefficiencies that can arise in recapturing the route after resolving a conflict. Horizontal resolution trajectories for a test matrix of encounters with varying aircraft speeds and geometries are computed by minimizing either flight time or deviation to serve as a baseline. Turn directions computed from a reference DAA algorithm coupled with a pilot selection model and a second algorithm called Autoresolver (AR) are compared to these baseline resolution trajectories. Baseline results show that turning into the intruder yields favorable cost for most encounters. Additional analysis of pilot response data shows that only three-fourths of pilots’ horizontal maneuvers turn into intruders, a percentage much lower than the baseline results. Improvement to a DAA guidance algorithm based on findings in this work is discussed.

Route Recapture↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Detect-and-Avoid Maneuver Planning: Benefits of Including Route Recapture

Development of Detect-and-avoid (DAA) systems’ maneuver guidance requirements at RTCA has centered on tactical maneuvers away from the intruder. Recapturing the flight-plan route the initial maneuver is not directly taken into account by most DAA maneuver guidance algorithms. This work demonstrates potential challenges and inefficiencies that can arise in recapturing the route after resolving a conflict. Horizontal resolution trajectories for a test matrix of encounters with varying aircraft speeds and geometries are computed by minimizing either flight time or deviation to serve as a baseline. Turn directions computed from a reference DAA algorithm coupled with a pilot selection model and a second algorithm called Autoresolver (AR) are compared to these baseline resolution trajectories. Baseline results show that turning into the intruder yields favorable cost for most encounters. Additional analysis of pilot response data shows that only three-fourths of pilots’ horizontal maneuvers turn into intruders, a percentage much lower than the baseline results. Improvement to a DAA guidance algorithm based on findings in this work is discussed.

Route Recapture↗
NASA NTRS2018

[Micron]ADS-B Detect and Avoid Flight Tests on Phantom 4 Unmanned Aircraft System

Researchers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Armstrong Flight Research Center in Edwards, California and Vigilant Aerospace Systems collaborated for the flight-test demonstration of an Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast based collision avoidance technology on a small unmanned aircraft system equipped with the uAvionix Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast transponder. The purpose of the testing was to demonstrate that National Aeronautics and Space Administration / Vigilant software and algorithms, commercialized as the FlightHorizon UAS"TM", are compatible with uAvionix hardware systems and the DJI Phantom 4 small unmanned aircraft system. The testing and demonstrations were necessary for both parties to further develop and certify the technology in three key areas: flights beyond visual line of sight, collision avoidance, and autonomous operations. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Vigilant Aerospace Systems have developed and successfully flight-tested an Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Detect and Avoid system on the Phantom 4 small unmanned aircraft system. The Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Detect and Avoid system architecture is especially suited for small unmanned aircraft systems because it integrates: 1) miniaturized Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast hardware; 2) radio data-link communications; 3) software algorithms for real-time Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast data integration, conflict detection, and alerting; and 4) a synthetic vision display using a fully-integrated National Aeronautics and Space Administration geobrowser for three dimensional graphical representations for ownship and air traffic situational awareness. The flight-test objectives were to evaluate the performance of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Detect and Avoid collision avoidance technology as installed on two small unmanned aircraft systems. In December 2016, four flight tests were conducted at Edwards Air Force Base. Researchers in the ground control station looking at displays were able to verify the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast target detection and collision avoidance resolutions.

avoidance↗
NASA NTRS2019

A Comparison of Two Terminal Area Detect and Avoid Well Clear Definitions

Technical requirements are currently under development for a detect and avoid system (DAA) that would support the operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) within the National Airspace System (NAS). Such a system would aid UAS operators in maintaining sufficient separation, or "well clear", from other aircraft in their vicinity. The first set of technical standards for a UAS DAA system (referred to as "Phase 1" requirements) was limited to UAS operations transiting through Class D, E, and G airspace to, or from, Class A (or special-use) airspace. Explicitly out of scope of the Phase 1 requirements was the operation of UAS within terminal airspace in the NAS. Fern, Rorie, Roberts and Monk (2018) explored the application of a Phase 1 DAA system within Class D terminal airspace in a human-in-the-loop simulation. The results of the study demonstrated a poor fit of the Phase 1 DAA well clear (DWC) definition to these terminal operations. The original DWC definition was designed for the en-route environment and could not account for the complex, tightly-choreographed nature of traffic typically found near an airport. The interaction of the en-route DWC definition and the terminal area traffic led to excessive DAA alerting against safely-separated traffic. The frequent alerting quickly degraded pilots' ability to discriminate between encounters where a maneuver was or was not necessary. This resulted in slower response times, higher rates of losses of DAA well clear, and more severe losses of DAA well clear than had been observed in previous DAA research (e.g., Rorie et al., 2017). The current paper reports on a follow-on study to Fern et al. (2018) that tested two DWC definitions designed to accommodate standard terminal area operating procedures, such as traffic in the downwind leg of a VFR traffic pattern while the UAS is on final. The two definitions utilized identical horizontal and vertical thresholds but differed in whether or not Tau (a function that takes into account the closure rate of two aircraft) was included as a part of the DWC hazard zone. The "Tau" DWC candidate definition nominally extended the DWC hazard zone by 15 seconds in the direction of the intruder aircraft, while the "No Tau" DWC candidate definition did not extend the DWC hazard zone. The results of this follow-on study indicated that both candidate definitions improved pilot and DAA system performance relative to Fern et al (2018). Pilot response times and rates of losses of DWC returned to levels comparable to earlier research in the en-route environment. Several important differences between the two DWC candidate definitions, however, are also discussed.

Terminal Area↗
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 NTRS1989

Detection and avoidance of errors in computer software

The acceptance test errors of a computer software project to determine if the errors could be detected or avoided in earlier phases of development. GROAGSS (Gamma Ray Observatory Attitude Ground Support System) was selected as the software project to be examined. The development of the software followed the standard Flight Dynamics Software Development methods. GROAGSS was developed between August 1985 and April 1989. The project is approximately 250,000 lines of code of which approximately 43,000 lines are reused from previous projects. GROAGSS had a total of 1715 Change Report Forms (CRFs) submitted during the entire development and testing. These changes contained 936 errors. Of these 936 errors, 374 were found during the acceptance testing. These acceptance test errors were first categorized into methods of avoidance including: more clearly written requirements; detail review; code reading; structural unit testing; and functional system integration testing. The errors were later broken down in terms of effort to detect and correct, class of error, and probability that the prescribed detection method would be successful. These determinations were based on Software Engineering Laboratory (SEL) documents and interviews with the project programmers. A summary of the results of the categorizations is presented. The number of programming errors at the beginning of acceptance testing can be significantly reduced. The results of the existing development methodology are examined for ways of improvements. A basis is provided for the definition is a new development/testing paradigm. Monitoring of the new scheme will objectively determine its effectiveness on avoiding and detecting errors.

Kinsler, Les↗
NASA NTRS2015

Probabilistic Surface Characterization for Safe Landing Hazard Detection and Avoidance (HDA)

Apparatuses, systems, computer programs and methods for performing hazard detection and avoidance for landing vehicles are provided. Hazard assessment takes into consideration the geometry of the lander. Safety probabilities are computed for a plurality of pixels in a digital elevation map. The safety probabilities are combined for pixels associated with one or more aim points and orientations. A worst case probability value is assigned to each of the one or more aim points and orientations.

Ivanov, Tonislav I.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Simulation and Flight Test Data Collection Review for Supporting Phase 1 Detect and Avoid MOPS

RTCA Special Committee 228 is a consortium of government, industry, and academic organizations tasked to develop minimum operational performance standards for UAS detect and avoid systems. The UAS in the NAS (National Airspace System) project is studying the minimum operational performance standards for unmanned aerial systems (UAS's) detect-and-avoid (DAA) system in order to operate in the National Airspace System. Over the past 3 years, the project has executed a series of fast-time simulation, human-in-the-loop experiments, and flight tests in support of this effort. The purpose of this briefing is to summarize the models developed and data collected to overcome UAS integration barriers, so UAS can remain well clear of all traffic.

Santiago, Confesor↗