Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “DAA”

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 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2020

Detect-and-Avoid: Flight Test 6 Scripted Encounters Data Analysis

The Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) project conducted Flight Test 6 (FT6) in 2019. The ultimate goal of this flight test was to produce data to inform RTCA SC-228's Phase II Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for Detect and Avoid (DAA) and Low Size, Weight, and Power Sensors. This report documents the analysis of scripted encounters' data. Scripted encounters own were analyzed and categorized based on the outcome of alert, maneuver guidance, and effectiveness of pilots' maneuver in resolving conflicts. Results indicate that UAS pilots' decisions as well as intruder maneuvers are leading factors that contribute to ineffective DAA maneuvers. Results also show that adding buffers to the DAA's suggested minimum turn angle improves effectiveness of the DAA maneuvers.

Wang, Wei-Ching↗
NASA NTRS2020

Integration Test and Evaluation (IT&E) Flight Test Series 6 Live Virtual Constructive - Distributed Environment (LVC-DE) Test Report

The goals of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) (also UAS-NAS) Project are to reduce the barriers for UAS access and its integration into the NAS. The UAS-NAS project and industry stakeholders conducted a series of flight tests integrating technologies from the Modeling & Simulation (M&S), Human Systems Integration (HSI), and Communication and Control (C2), and Integration, Test & Evaluation (IT&E) research areas. The last of the flight test series, Flight Test Series 6 (FT6) was conducted in late 2019 and focused on evaluating the interaction of the airborne non-cooperative surveillance system and the Detect and Avoid (DAA) technology. The DAA system generated conflict alert and guidance for pilots using a Research Ground Control System (RGCS) to avoid intruder aircraft. The conflict alerting and guidance information was presented on the RGCS’s display using symbology developed by the human factors team. The objective of FT6 was to investigate the interoperability of Low Size, Weight, and Power (Low SWaP) sensors with the DAA alerting, guidance, and display requirements. To support this goal, the distributed test environments (DTE) were developed at Ames Research Center (ARC) and Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC) and securely linked over a Virtual Private Network (VPN). These environments took advantage of existing Live Virtual Constructive (LVC) technologies to support research observation at both Centers with the insertion of live UAS and manned intruder aircraft into a simulated NAS environment with Air Traffic Control (ATC) and constructive manned aircraft. The experiment was distributed between AFRC flight operations and research facilities and the Distributed Simulation Research Laboratory (DSRL) and Software Development Laboratory (SDL) in building N243 at ARC. The Air Traffic Controller and pseudo pilots operated from the DSRL and SDL, respectively, using the Multi-Aircraft Control System (MACS). The test subject and researchers operated from the Research Ground Control Station (RGCS) at AFRC using the Vigilant Spirit Control Station (VSCS) and associated DAA software and displays. Flight Operation for the unmanned aircraft (UA) and manned intruder traffic was conducted at AFRC. Virtual traffic was managed by ARC. Voice distribution was accomplished using a combination of disparate communication systems at ARC and AFRC. The purpose of this document is to record the development, design, and execution of activities in support of the FT6 efforts from the perspective of the ARC IT&E team. Furthermore, the Armstrong IT&E team has published a thorough FT6 Test Report, with emphasis on flight test support, facilities and vehicle development; this report complements the Armstrong report. Analysis of collected FT6 data will be conducted and reported by the M&S and HSI teams and will be published in separate reports.

UAS-NAS↗
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 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 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 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 NTRS2020

UAS Pilot Assessments of Display and Alerting for the Airborne Collision Avoidance System XU

Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) must comply with specific standards to operate in the National Airspace System (NAS). Among the requirements are the detect and avoid (DAA) capabilities, which include display, alerting, and guidance specifications. Previous studies have queried pilots for their subjective feedback on these display elements on earlier systems; the present study sought pilot evaluations with an initial iteration of the unmanned variant of a Next Generation Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS XU). Sixteen participants piloted simulated aircraft with both standalone and integrated DAA displays. Their opinions were gathered using post-block and post-simulation questionnaires as well as guided debriefs. The data showed pilots had better understanding and comfort with the system when using an integrated display. Pilots also rated ACAS Xu alerting and guidance as generally acceptable and effective. Implications for further development of ACAS XU and DAA displays are discussed.

UAS↗
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 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 NTRS1982

Preliminary results from the NASA general aviation demonstration advanced avionics system program

NASA's Demonstration Advanced Avionics System (DAAS) is an integrated avionics system employing microprocessor technologies, data busing, and shared electronics displays. A DAAS demonstration system has been assessed through flight testing and demonstration for potential users which includes among its functions autopiloting, navigation/flight planning, a flight warning and advisory system, performance computations, normal and emergency checklists, and a ground simulation function. Exceptional performance has been obtained from the DAAS electronic horizontal situation indicator, the autopilot, the navigator/flight planner, and the discrete address beacon system.

Hardy, G. H.↗
NASA NTRS2015

SSI-ARC Flight Test 3 Data Review

The "Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Integration into the National Airspace System (NAS)" Project conducted flight test program, referred to as Flight Test 3, at Armstrong Flight Research Center from June - August 2015. Four flight test days were dedicated to the NASA Ames-developed Detect and Avoid (DAA) System referred to as Autoresolver. 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. Resulting flight test data and analysis results will be used to evaluate the DAA system performance (e.g., trajectory prediction accuracy, threat detection) and to add fidelity to simulation models used to inform Minimum Operating Performance Standards (MOPS) for integrating UAS into routine NAS operations.

detect and avoid↗
NASA NTRS2016

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Human-in-the-Loop Controller and Pilot Acceptability Study: Collision Avoidance, Self-Separation, and Alerting Times (CASSAT)

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been mandated by the Congressional funding bill of 2012 to open the National Airspace System (NAS) to Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). With the growing use of unmanned systems, NASA has established a multi-center "UAS Integration in the NAS" Project, in collaboration with the FAA and industry, and is guiding its research efforts to look at and examine crucial safety concerns regarding the integration of UAS into the NAS. Key research efforts are addressing requirements for detect-and-avoid (DAA), self-separation (SS), and collision avoidance (CA) technologies. In one of a series of human-in-the-loop experiments, NASA Langley Research Center set up a study known as Collision Avoidance, Self-Separation, and Alerting Times (CASSAT). The first phase assessed active air traffic controller interactions with DAA systems and the second phase examined reactions to the DAA system and displays by UAS Pilots at a simulated ground control station (GCS). Analyses of the test results from Phase I and Phase II are presented in this paper. Results from the CASSAT study and previous human-in-the-loop experiments will play a crucial role in the FAA's establishment of rules, regulations, and procedures to safely, efficiently, and effectively integrate UAS into the NAS.

Comstock, James R., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Integrated Test and Evaluation (ITE) Flight Test Series 4

The integrated Flight Test 4 (FT4) will gather data for the UAS researchers Sense and Avoid systems (referred to as Detect and Avoid in the RTCA SC 228 ToR) algorithms and pilot displays for candidate UAS systems in a relevant environment. The technical goals of FT4 are to: 1) perform end-to-end traffic encounter test of pilot guidance generated by DAA algorithms; 2) collect data to inform the initial Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for Detect and Avoid systems. FT4 objectives and test infrastructure builds from previous UAS project simulations and flight tests. NASA Ames (ARC), NASA Armstrong (AFRC), and NASA Langley (LaRC) Research Centers will share responsibility for conducting the tests, each providing a test lab and critical functionality. UAS-NAS project support and participation on the 2014 flight test of ACAS Xu and DAA Self Separation (SS) significantly contributed to building up infrastructure and procedures for FT3 as well. The DAA Scripted flight test (FT4) will be conducted out of NASA Armstrong over an eight-week period beginning in April 2016.

ITE↗
NASA NTRS2017

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Detect and Avoid System: End-to-End Verification and Validation Simulation Study of Minimum Operations Performance Standards for Integrating Unmanned Aircraft into the National Airspace System

As Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) make their way to mainstream aviation operations within the National Airspace System (NAS), research efforts are underway to develop a safe and effective environment for their integration into the NAS. Detect and Avoid (DAA) systems are required to account for the lack of "eyes in the sky" due to having no human on-board the aircraft. The technique, results, and lessons learned from a detailed End-to-End Verification and Validation (E2-V2) simulation study of a DAA system representative of RTCA SC-228's proposed Phase I DAA Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS), based on specific test vectors and encounter cases, will be presented in this paper.

Ghatas, Rania W.↗
NASA NTRS2017

UAS Well Clear Recovery Against Non-Cooperative Intruders Using Vertical Maneuvers

This paper documents a study that drove the development of a mathematical expression in the minimum operational performance standards (MOPS) of detect-and-avoid (DAA) systems for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). This equation describes the conditions under which vertical maneuver guidance could be provided during recovery of well clear separation with a non-cooperative VFR aircraft in addition to horizontal maneuver guidance. Although suppressing vertical maneuver guidance in these situations increased the minimum horizontal separation from 500 to 800 feet, the maximum severity of loss of well clear increased in about 35 of the encounters compared to when a vertical maneuver was preferred and allowed. Additionally, analysis of individual cases led to the identification of a class of encounter where vertical rate error had a large effect on horizontal maneuvers due to the difficulty of making the correct left-right turn decision: crossing conflict with intruder changing altitude. These results supported allowing vertical maneuvers when UAS vertical performance exceeds the relative vertical position and velocity accuracy of the DAA tracker given the current velocity of the UAS and the relative vertical position and velocity estimated by the DAA tracker. Looking ahead, these results indicate a need to improve guidance algorithms by utilizing maneuver stability and near mid-air collision risk when determining maneuver guidance to regain well clear separation.

detect and avoid↗