SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Conflict Management”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2020

UAS Traffic Management Conflict Management Model

Version 2 of the UAS Traffic Management (UTM) Conflict Management Model. This document is a concept overview paper that describes the conflict mitigation methodology that supports the use cases described in TCL 4 operating environments (urban BVLOS operations). The general conflict mitigation model values the use of redundant mitigation technologies that operate over different time horizons to reach a target level of safety for the operation. Separation provision contributes to the safety of the overall separation, and each participant (USS, UAS, other airspace users) is responsible for ensuring separation is maintained between aircraft. The intent of this document is to capture the minimum level of separation provisions that are necessary for safe operations in the airspace. Additional equipage and capability can be seen as a mechanism to enhance safety but may not be the minimum need for entry into the airspace.

UTM↗

NASA NTRS2005

Handling Trajectory Uncertainties for Airborne Conflict Management

Airborne conflict management is an enabling capability for NASA's Distributed Air-Ground Traffic Management (DAG-TM) concept. DAGTM has the goal of significantly increasing capacity within the National Airspace System, while maintaining or improving safety. Under DAG-TM, autonomous aircraft maintain separation from each other and from managed aircraft unequipped for autonomous flight. NASA Langley Research Center has developed the Autonomous Operations Planner (AOP), an onboard decision support system that provides airborne conflict management (ACM) and strategic flight planning support for autonomous aircraft pilots. The AOP performs conflict detection, prevention, and resolution from nearby traffic aircraft and area hazards. Traffic trajectory information is assumed to be provided by Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B). Reliable trajectory prediction is a key capability for providing effective ACM functions. Trajectory uncertainties due to environmental effects, differences in aircraft systems and performance, and unknown intent information lead to prediction errors that can adversely affect AOP performance. To accommodate these uncertainties, the AOP has been enhanced to create cross-track, vertical, and along-track buffers along the predicted trajectories of both ownship and traffic aircraft. These buffers will be structured based on prediction errors noted from previous simulations such as a recent Joint Experiment between NASA Ames and Langley Research Centers and from other outside studies. Currently defined ADS-B parameters related to navigation capability, trajectory type, and path conformance will be used to support the algorithms that generate the buffers.

Barhydt, Richard↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Demand Capacity Balancing at Vertiports for Initial Strategic Conflict Management of Urban Air Mobility Operations

Urban Air Mobility (UAM) is a new transportation concept that enables highly automated, cooperative, passenger or cargo-carrying air transportation services in and around urban areas. To achieve the high level of operational density and complexity desired by the UAM community, an airspace system that allows UAM operators to readily access and operate safely and efficiently in the airspace is needed. This airspace system will require air traffic management designed to reduce the risk of conflicts and loss of separation between UAM flights. In general, strategic conflict management is considered as the first layer of conflict management for safe flight operations to condition the traffic to reduce the need for airborne separation provision, the second layer of conflict management. Demand Capacity Balancing (DCB) is one of the concept components to achieve strategic conflict management. DCB strategically evaluates traffic demand and resource capacities to allow UAM operators to determine when, where and how they operate, while mitigating conflicting needs for airspace and vertiport capacity. DCB can be applied whenever UAM demand exceeds the capacity in airspace or at vertiports. As the UAM ecosystem evolves with advanced technologies and matured operational procedures, more complicated conflict management will likely be needed. In the current UAM ‘Concept of Operation (ConOps) 1.0’ operational stage defined by FAA, however, it will be meaningful to explore the demand capacity balancing at vertiports only, as an initial strategic conflict management approach for UAM operations because vertiport capacity seems to be a bottleneck of UAM traffic. For this research, we developed a demand-capacity imbalance detection and resolution service for UAM. This DCB service identifies the demand from operators and compares the demand to a given capacity at the shared resources (i.e., vertiports) over the upcoming time horizon which is divided into time bins having a constant interval. When a new flight plan is submitted, the algorithm embedded in the DCB service checks the available time bins based on the desired departure time and estimated arrival time at origin and destination vertiports, respectively. If the time bins for the originally desired times are already occupied by other flights (i.e., demand is at or above capacity), the algorithm finds the next available time bins for takeoff and landing and shifts the conflicting departure time to the earliest time that satisfies the capacity constraints at both origin and destination vertiports. The details of the algorithm will be described in the final manuscript. Figure 1 shows that the proposed DCB algorithm works well for a sample traffic scenario. In this example, a total of 144 flights, split between two operators, are planned over 2 hours, traveling 10 routes between five vertiports. In the heatmaps, the horizontal axis shows 12 time bins where each bin represents a 12-minute interval, and the vertical axis shows five vertiports. The number in each cell shows the number of operations, counting both departures and arrivals, at a specific vertiport in each time bin. For the given capacity of 2 operations/vertiport/bin, Figure 1 shows that the original demand sometimes exceeds the capacity, but the modified demand is reduced to the given capacity after resolving demand-capacity imbalances. When UAM flights are operated, it is expected that many practical issues would arise in the federated system architecture with multiple operators. UAM operators may experience a time synchronization issue due to communication delay between operator and vehicle. UAM vehicles would fly at different flight speeds, depending on vehicle models. Actual departure and arrival times can have large variations, compared to the schedule. The lead time from flight plan submission to desired departure time can vary by service type (e.g., regular shuttle service vs. on-demand service). Using the proposed DCB algorithm, we also investigated how the actual flight schedule and DCB performance are affected by these uncertainties such as unsynchronized times between operators, flight speed differences, lead time differences, and departure time errors. The final manuscript will include the background of this research work, the description of the DCB algorithm and its use cases with traffic scenarios. It will also provide the analytical results about the impact of various uncertainties that can occur in actual UAM operations on the DCB at vertiports, in terms of demand distribution changes, number of simultaneous operations, and delay propagation.

Urban Air Mobility↗

NASA NTRS2023

Analysis of Strategic Conflict Management Approaches as Applied to Simulated UAM Operations

This report presents the results of a comparison analysis of candidate Strategic Conflict Management (SCM) strategies as applied to Urban Air Mobility (UAM) operations. The SCM strategies investigated included: no SCM, resource scheduling (RS), resource flow rates (FR), area-based flow rates (AR), and conflict detection and resolution (CR). The study evaluated each strategy against the same 3 levels of flight demand in a representative airspace construct for the Dallas/Fort Worth region. The study also accounted for different levels of uncertainty in operational planning and equivalent levels of trajectory following error. In the analysis, we compared the SCM strategies’ effectiveness in reducing the need for the tactical conflict management layer to act and looked at the metrics of unmitigated losses-of-separation (LOS), flight delays imposed by strategic planning, and throughput of the overall airspace. The study results indicated that the CR strategy was the most effective at reducing LOS and percentage of flights with LOS, even in the presence of trajectory error when uncertainty is accounted for in planning. Thus, if the objective is to reduce the number of actions that the tactical conflict management layer will have to take, in terms of conflicts that may need to be resolved, CR is the strategy to use. The FR strategy was found to be the worst at reducing LOS and percentage of flights with LOS. Thus, it is not very effective at reducing the actions required by a tactical conflict management layer. In the airspace tested, the demand was high enough to produce unacceptable levels of flight delay and reductions of throughput when the SCM strategies were implemented. This was especially evident at the higher levels of trajectory uncertainty and error. The need to account for expected levels of uncertainty becomes more and more important as the demand level increases and as the level of trajectory error increases. This is because the likelihood of flights with LOS increases as the density of operations increases and as the level of trajectory error increases. Accounting for uncertainty in the SCM strategies improves the strategy effectiveness with respect to LOS but increases delays and reduces throughput. Thus, there is a tradeoff between scalability and allowable levels of uncertainty. That is, we can implement an air traffic management construct that allows high levels of uncertainty, but we can expect that same system to have limits on scalability that may be evident even at small demand levels, such as those used in this study. Therefore, the results in this study indicate that an air traffic system should attempt to implement mechanisms appropriate for reducing uncertainty where possible in order to increase the chances for scalability. And this increased level of predictability of operations needs to be balanced with mechanisms for ensuring flexibility when operational conditions and plans need to change, even though those types of changes should be the exception rather than the rule under normal conditions. The study also introduced a trade space that could serve as a mechanism for selecting the appropriate SCM strategy in a trade-off between uncertainty and error, mean flight delay, and the LOS metrics (which this study equates to the potential for tactical conflict management actions). The optimal solution for a given airspace, demand level, and other factors, could likely be a combination of SCM strategies, although this study only compared the use of a single SCM strategy at a time. The CR strategy appeared to have the best opportunity for scalability by limiting the number of potential tactical actions to nearly zero.

Strategic Conflict Management↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

UTM Conflict Management

An overview of the UTM Conflict Management Model and testing under UTM that verified the concept.

UTM↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Simulated Evaluation of Strategic Conflict Management Capabilities for Urban Air Mobility Operations

Urban Air Mobility (UAM) is a new air transportation service concept to carry passengers or cargo in metropolitan areas, leveraged by innovative aircraft and automation technologies. NASA has conducted a series of simulations to evaluate the UAM concept of operations and inform the development of airspace procedures and services for UAM operations. The latest set of simulations called “X5” were conducted to test a Provider of Services for UAM (PSU) prototype that NASA developed for UAM flight planning, strategic conflict management support, and data exchange between UAM operators. In these simulations, two strategic conflict management capabilities, Demand-Capacity Balancing (DCB) and Sequencing and Scheduling (S&S), were further investigated. This paper describes the system architecture designed for the X5 simulation activities, the sequence diagram for strategic conflict management, and the simulation environment in the Dallas/Fort Worth urban area. The simulation results based on several system performance metrics for evaluation show that a sequential application of DCB and S&S effectively works to distribute traffic demand and meet sequencing and spacing criteria by assigning ground delays, compared to the DCB only and S&S only cases.

Simulation↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Simulated Evaluation of Strategic Conflict Management Capabilities for Urban Air Mobility Operations

Urban Air Mobility, Strategic Conflict Management,↗

NASA NTRS2022

National Campaign (NC)-1 Strategic Conflict Management Simulation (X4) Final Report

Urban Air Mobility (UAM) enables highly automated, cooperative, passenger or cargo-carrying air transportation services in and around urban areas. UAM is a subset of the Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) concept under development by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and industry. The Strategic Conflict Management (SCM) Simulation, dubbed “X4”, was conducted between July 2021 and June 2022 by NASA with the FAA and industry to evolve the Provider of Services for UAM (PSU) that will be needed to ensure initial UAM operations can scale in the National Airspace System (NAS). The FAA UAM Concept of Operations (ConOps) v1 [1] served as an initial guiding document for the X4 airspace management system design to ensure the architecture supports testing of services provided by third-party service providers. To that end, the X4 architecture leveraged concepts and technologies developed for Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) while also developing and testing new capabilities and services needed for UAM. The architecture included an initial prototype of the FAA-Industry Exchange Protocol (FIDXP), third-party services such as the PSUs, and Discovery and Synchronization Service (DSS), and other new services such as Demand-Capacity Balancing (DCB) to facilitate UAM strategic conflict management. During X4, NASA led discussions and collaborated with seven industry airspace partners to develop initial airspace management concepts for UAM that drove what would be tested and evaluated during the simulations. The initial capabilities defined for PSU leveraged UTM UAS Service Supplier (USS) as a starting point and evolved to meet UAM requirements. These discussions were also an opportunity for NASA to collaborate with industry to develop a set of initial Community-Based Rules (CBRs). These CBRs enabled how UAM traffic would be cooperatively managed among UAM operators. The collaborative, iterative process of developing CBRs with industry during X4 provided insight into the challenges involved and identified the need for a suitable and effective forum for future CBR development. In parallel with these discussions, NASA conducted a series of seven software sprints and two collaborative simulations with the airspace partners that built up in complexity. Over the course of the year, all seven partners successfully completed all the sprints by demonstrating the required capabilities. They also participated in the two collaborative simulations to demonstrate how multiple PSUs could work together in a collaborative, more complex environment with higher traffic density. The X4 simulation accomplished NASA's objectives and helped advance the development of the seven participating PSUs. The lessons learned provided insight into key elements of the UAM Notional Architecture from the FAA ConOps v1 [1] and UTM technologies when applied to UAM: - Having a Concept of Use (ConUse) defined prior to the activity would accelerate the time and effort from concept development to testing. - While the UAM Notional Architecture provided a starting point for a federated architecture that support services provided by third-party providers, the USS and PSU differed in their capability definitions for operational intent submission and sharing, conformance monitoring, airspace authorization, strategic conflict management, airspace constraints and dynamic replanning. - While existing DSS developed for UTM provided a way for PSU and other UAM services (such as DCB) to discover relevant operations from each other, additional complexity and challenges were found during X4 testing and illuminated the need for a more suitable solution for UAM. Industry can leverage the results of this demonstration to accelerate UAM requirements, CBRs, and standards development. The FAA and other government municipalities and agencies will be able to leverage results to inform future policies and identify additional gaps that require further analysis, moving toward operationalization of UAM.

Urban Air Mobility↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Demand Capacity Balancing at Vertiports for Initial Strategic Conflict Management of Urban Air Mobility Operations

Demand Capacity Balancing (DCB) can be applied in strategic conflict management for safe Urban Air Mobility (UAM) operations. Even when the operational tempo is low, traffic demand can locally exceed the capacity at airspace resources like vertiports. This paper proposes a DCB algorithm to manage the UAM traffic demand strategically, given the capacity at vertiports. The DCB algorithm is evaluated with traffic scenarios at Dallas/Fort Worth urban area in terms of various metrics such as demand distribution changes, pre-departure delay, and the number of simultaneous operations in the air. With the same experiment setup, more extended studies are also conducted to investigate how the UAM flight scheduling based on the DCB algorithm is affected by various conditions that can occur in a practical UAM environment, including vertiport capacity changes, a slot size parameter in capacity constraint, differences in operational policy between operators like lead time for flight plan submission and cruise flight speed, and uncertainties in actual departure and arrival times.

Urban Air Mobility↗

NASA NTRS2022

National Campaign (NC)-1 Strategic Conflict Management Simulation (X4) Community Based Rules

Projected demand for transportation services in the urban environment has led to the development of several Concepts of Operation for Urban Air Mobility, or UAM. UAM is a concept for the transportation of people and goods in the metropolitan environment using small, efficient aircraft over short distances as part of an expanding multimodal transportation network. UAM will leverage emerging technologies including electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) aircraft, increasing levels of automation and a new operational paradigm in dense airspace where a set of agreed-upon rules govern the procedures and interactions defining a cooperative environment in which operators are entrusted with a range of functions typically conducted by Air Traffic Control (ATC). These rules, proposed in the FAA NextGen Office’s UAM Concept of Operations [1], were originally termed Community Based Rules or Community Business Rules (CBRs), and will in the future termed Cooperative Operating Practices (COPs); this document uses the original term, CBR. CBRs are a set of rules, developed by the UAM community and (where necessary) approved by the FAA that govern the interactions between UAM entities and limit the need for ATC services including, but not limited to, separation control by ATC, addressing a fundamental challenge to scaling UAM operations. UAM community development of CBRs is anticipated to accelerate the adoption of new practices while retaining the regulatory authority of the FAA within required domains (e.g., NAS safety, security and equal access). However, there currently exists no agreed industry forum or defined procedures for CBR development. Investigation of best practices for the development of UAM CBRs was identified by NASA and the FAA NextGen Office as a research need. In collaboration with seven industry partners, NASA participated in a series of simulations that investigated elements of the envisioned UAM operations, with a primary focus on Strategic Conflict Management (SCM). The development and conduct of cooperative UAM simulations with seven industry partners provided a unique opportunity to investigate CBR development practices. Development of CBRs for the UAM SCM simulations was conducted in parallel with simulation capability development and was closely related to requirements definition for the simulations. As such, the CBR development effort presented herein had two objectives: explore CBR development practices in collaboration with the industry partners and develop an initial set of UAM CBRs to support simulation requirements definition and development. Consensus was achieved among NASA and the industry partners on 24 CBRs that were developed to support the cooperative simulation operations across five topic areas: General (related to test requirements), Operational Intent, Conformance Monitoring, Demand Capacity Balancing, and Airspace Constraint Management. Additional topic areas and CBRs were discussed but were deemed outside the scope of the simulation; these are included in the appendices. A collaborative, iterative process was employed for developing the CBRs engaging both NASA and Industry; because CBR development is envisioned to be community-driven, opportunities were sought that provided industry partners leadership roles in developing CBRs. The following key observations and recommendations may aid the UAM industry in future CBR development efforts: - The lack of a defined process proved challenging initially. Stakeholder engagement in the early stages of CBR development was intermittent and may have been due to the lack of a clear definition of roles and responsibilities of those involved in the effort. - Industry leadership of CBR topic areas proved successful. Discussions in these topic areas were engaging, with alternate viewpoints freely discussed and detailed CBRs resulting. This points to the importance of identifying the best-suited leadership in technical areas for CBR development. - Discussions within a CBR topic area were typically dominated by only a few participants. Whereas all industry partners contributed to CBR development, within each topic area, technical leadership was evident even when not formally established. This observation may indicate that smaller, focused groups may be more effective in initial CBR development than an open forum or large standards development effort (although both maybe required prior to FAA review and approval for some CBRs). - Identifying suitable forums for initial UAM CBR development and identifying the most effective industry participants and leadership will be crucial for successful CBR development. Although the operational need for UAM CBRs may not be immediate, establishing the forums and leadership to define the processes for CBR development is a prudent early step to UAM realization.

Community Based Rules↗

NASA NTRS2003

Autonomous Aircraft Operations using RTCA Guidelines for Airborne Conflict Management

A human-in-the-loop experiment was performed at the NASA Langley Research Center to study the feasibility of DAG-TM autonomous aircraft operations in highly constrained airspace. The airspace was constrained by a pair of special-use airspace (SUA) regions on either side of the pilot's planned route. Traffic flow management (TFM) constraints were imposed as a required time of arrival and crossing altitude at an en route fix. Key guidelines from the RTCA Airborne Conflict Management (ACM) concept were applied to autonomous aircraft operations for this experiment. These concepts included the RTCA ACM definitions of distinct conflict detection and collision avoidance zones, and the use of a graded system of conflict alerts for the flight crew. Three studies were conducted in the course of the experiment. The first study investigated the effect of hazard proximity upon pilot ability to meet constraints and solve conflict situations. The second study investigated pilot use of the airborne tools when faced with an unexpected loss of separation (LOS). The third study explored pilot interactions in an over-constrained conflict situation, with and without priority rules dictating who should move first. Detailed results from these studies were presented at the 5th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar (ATM2003). This overview paper focuses on the integration of the RTCA ACM concept into autonomous aircraft operations in highly constrained situations, and provides an overview of the results presented at the ATM2003 seminar. These results, together with previously reported studies, continue to support the feasibility of autonomous aircraft operations.

Krishnamurthy, Karthik↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Sirius: Simulation and Evaluation of Tactical Conflict Management in an Urban Environment

This presentation provides an overview of the SIRIUS framework, updates to the ICAROUS core modules, and highlights the results of recent simulation and evaluation of tactical deconfliction in an urban environment. The SIRIUS simulation framework provides a fast time method for simulation a large number of aircraft in parallel. Updates to the ICAROUS core modules highlighted in the presentation include the evaluation of the encounter type geometry and changes to the resolution type selection based on the encounter type and following right of way (ROW) rules. The main objective of the simulation was to evaluate the use of strategic and tactical conflict management strategies using a set of simulated UAM scenarios.

Andrew Peters↗

NASA NTRS2004

Design of a Multi-mode Flight Deck Decision Support System for Airborne Conflict Management

NASA Langley has developed a multi-mode decision support system for pilots operating in a Distributed Air-Ground Traffic Management (DAG-TM) environment. An Autonomous Operations Planner (AOP) assists pilots in performing separation assurance functions, including conflict detection, prevention, and resolution. Ongoing AOP design has been based on a comprehensive human factors analysis and evaluation results from previous human-in-the-loop experiments with airline pilot test subjects. AOP considers complex flight mode interactions and provides flight guidance to pilots consistent with the current aircraft control state. Pilots communicate goals to AOP by setting system preferences and actively probing potential trajectories for conflicts. To minimize training requirements and improve operational use, AOP design leverages existing alerting philosophies, displays, and crew interfaces common on commercial aircraft. Future work will consider trajectory prediction uncertainties, integration with the TCAS collision avoidance system, and will incorporate enhancements based on an upcoming air-ground coordination experiment.

Barhydt, Richard↗

NASA NTRS2001

Distributed and Centralized Conflict Management Under Traffic Flow Management Constraints

The past year's activity has concentrated on the following two activities: (1) Refining and completing our study on the stability of interacting flows of aircraft when they have to resolve conflicts in a decentralized and sequential manner. More specifically, it was felt that some of the modeling assumptions made during previous research (such offset maneuvering models) could be improved to include more realistic models such as heading changes when analyzing interacting flow stability problems. We extended our analysis to achieve this goal. The results of this study have been submitted for presentation at the 2002 American Control Conference; (2) Examining the issues associated with delay propagation across multiple enroute sectors. This study was initiated at NASA in cooperation with Dr. Karl Bilimoria. Considering a set of adjacent sectors, this ongoing study concentrates on the effect of various traffic flow management strategies on the propagation of delays and congestion across sectors. The problem description and findings so far are reported in the attached working paper "Enroute sector buffering capacity."

Feron, Eric↗

NASA NTRS2005

Pilot Preference, Compliance, and Performance With an Airborne Conflict Management Toolset

A human-in-the-loop experiment was conducted at the NASA Ames and Langley Research Centers, investigating the En Route Free Maneuvering component of a future air traffic management concept termed Distributed Air/Ground Traffic Management (DAG-TM). NASA Langley test subject pilots used the Autonomous Operations Planner (AOP) airborne toolset to detect and resolve traffic conflicts, interacting with subject pilots and air traffic controllers at NASA Ames. Experimental results are presented, focusing on conflict resolution maneuver choices, AOP resolution guidance acceptability, and performance metrics. Based on these results, suggestions are made to further improve the AOP interface and functionality.

Doble, Nathan A.↗

NASA NTRS2003

Airborne Conflict Management within Confined Airspace in a Piloted Simulation of DAG-TM Autonomous Aircraft Operations

A human-in-the-loop experiment was performed at the NASA Langley Research Center to study the feasibility of Distributed Air/Ground Traffic Management (DAG-TM) autonomous aircraft operations in highly constrained airspace. The airspace was constrained by a pair of special use airspace (SUA) regions on either side of the pilot s planned route. The available airspace was further varied by changing the separation standard for lateral separation between 3 nm and 5 nm. The pilot had to maneuver through the corridor between the SUA s, avoid other traffic and meet flow management constraints. Traffic flow management (TFM) constraints were imposed as a required time of arrival and crossing altitude at an en route fix. This is a follow-up study to work presented at the 4th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar in December 2001. Nearly all of the pilots were able to meet their TFM constraints while maintaining adequate separation from other traffic. In only 3 out of 59 runs were the pilots unable to meet their required time of arrival. Two loss of separation cases are studied and it is found that the pilots need conflict prevention information presented in a clearer manner. No degradation of performance or safety was seen between the wide and narrow corridors. Although this was not a thorough study of the consequences of reducing the en route lateral separation, nothing was found that would refute the feasibility of reducing the separation requirement from 5 nm to 3 nm. The creation of additional, second-generation conflicts is also investigated. Two resolution methods were offered to the pilots: strategic and tactical. The strategic method is a closed-loop alteration to the Flight Management System (FMS) active route that considers other traffic as well as TFM constraints. The tactical resolutions are short-term resolutions that leave avoiding other traffic conflicts and meeting the TFM constraints to the pilot. Those that made use of the strategic tools avoided additional conflicts, whereas, those making tactical maneuvers often caused additional conflicts. Many of these second-generation conflicts could be avoided by improved conflict prevention tools that clearly present to the pilot which maneuver choices will result in a conflict-free path. These results, together with previously reported studies, continue to support the feasibility of autonomous aircraft operations.

Barmore, Bryan↗

NASA NTRS2003

Distributed and Centralized Conflict Management Under Traffic Flow Management Constraints

Current air transportation in the United States relies on a system born half a century ago. While demand for air travel has kept increasing over the years, technologies at the heart of the National Airspace System (NAS) have not been able to follow an adequate evolution. For instance, computers used to centralize flight data in airspace sectors run a software developed in 1972. Safety, as well as certification and portability issues arise as major obstacles for the improvement of the system. The NAS is a structure that has never been designed, but has rather evolved over time. This has many drawbacks, mainly due to a lack of integration and engineering leading to many inefficiencies and losses of performance. To improve the operations, understanding of this complex needs to be built up to a certain level. This work presents research done on Air Traffic Management (ATM) at the level of the en-route sector.

Feron, Eric↗

NASA NTRS2025

Provider of Services for Urban Air Mobility (PSU) Prototype Simulation (X5) Final Report

Urban Air Mobility (UAM) is a new air transportation service concept to carry passengers or cargo in metropolitan areas, leveraged by innovative aircraft and air traffic automation technologies. NASA has conducted a series of simulations, called the X-series simulation, to evaluate the UAM concept of operations and support the development of airspace procedures and services for UAM operations. The simulation called “X5” was conducted in 2023 to test a Provider of Services for UAM (PSU) prototype developed by NASA for UAM flight planning, strategic conflict management support, and data exchange between UAM operators. In this simulation, two strategic conflict management capabilities, Demand-Capacity Balancing and Sequencing and Scheduling, were further investigated. This document describes the UAM system architecture modeled, the X5 simulation environment to be executed (e.g., traffic scenario and UAM airspace construct), and the strategic conflict management processes developed and evaluated in this study. Then, the simulation results are provided using several system performance metrics, such as the number of operations planned and activated, demand-capacity imbalances detected and resolved, and pre-departure delays. Based on these metrics, the test findings and lessons learned from this simulation are discussed. NASA developed a PSU prototype as part of a reference implementation of UAM system architecture and evolved strategic conflict management capabilities for UAM operations from the previous collaborative simulations with industry partners. Below is the summary of the achievements: - Aligned NASA’s UAM reference architecture with the FAA’s UAM ConOps notional architecture - Extended UAM airspace management capabilities to include 1) Demand-Capacity Balancing (DCB) to ensure operators coordinate planned usage of shared vertiports, and 2) Sequencing and Scheduling (S&S) at UAM corridor entry and exit points to help facilitate an orderly flow of traffic - Defined the PSU information exchange APIs and requirements towards informing industry standards - Developed and tested a NASA PSU prototype as reference implementation to validate the requirements and APIs - Developed a prototype service connecting NASA’s PSU and the FAA system for testing future PSU-ATM interface requirements - Tested NASA-developed assumptions for UAM operations such as airspace design, procedures, vehicle performance, and strategic conflict management methods to inform future Cooperative Operating Practices (COPs) development with industry - Evaluated system performance metrics such as number of simultaneous operations and ground delays that can help define system-level requirements. The simulation results showed that the UAM traffic demand could be managed to minimize the needs of tactical separation provision with ground delays assigned by DCB and S&S. These accomplishments and the lessons learned from the PSU Prototype X5 simulation activities will be valuable inputs for the Air Mobility Pathfinders (AMP) project, which is NASA’s new project to create and evaluate a reference architecture for safe, secure, and scalable UAM operations.

Simulation↗