FAA Support for DoD’s UAS AI Joint TestJoint University Program (JUP) TIM

Al Schwartz, Modeling and Simulation Branch, ANG-C55January 21, 2016

Project Overview

2

• DOD UAS Airspace Integration Joint Test (UAS AI JT) Team (Sponsor) Researching the

development of standard operating procedures

Includes contingency operations

Two Phases and Teams on the Project

• Two distinct teams working different experiments ANG-C41: fast-time computer simulation

o Assisted DOD team in development of procedural charts to test if flyable by UAS and have low impact on other National Airspace System (NAS) traffic

o Provides input into HITL in number of ways (e.g. solving issues procedure charts)

ANG-E: HITL experiment in WJHTC labso Examine the effectiveness of standardized procedures for UAS arrival,

departure, en route, and contingency operations across all DoD serviceso Across 3 phases of flight: Terminal Area, Transit, Operating Area

• Both teams benefit from collaboration as each set of experiments are developed in a phased time line

3

DecNov ‘13 Jan’14 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

ANG-C41 : Computer SimulationANG-E : Human-in-the-Loop

Phase 1:Phase 2:

Model Preparation

Experimental Design

Input Data Preparation

Simulation Conduct and

Analysis

#ANG-C41 Task (See Table 5 of PSS) Deliverable (See Table 2 of PSS)DOD Task (See Table 5 of PSS) Technical Interchange Meeting

FebDecNov ‘13 Jan ‘14 Apr JunMayMar

(MP1) Gather Aircraft Performance Characteristics

(MP2) Develop Aircraft Verification Scenarios

(MP3) Run Simulation

(MP4) Analyze Simulation Results

(MP5) Document Verified Aircraft Performance Characteristics2

(ED1) Determine Initial Set of Metrics(ED2) Document Experimental Design1

Flight Test 1 Program Review

(IDP3) Gather SME Feedback on Chart and Traffic Validity

(IDP4) Provide Traffic Sample

(IDP6) Develop Initial Chart Scenarios in Simulation Tool

(IDP5) Configure Metrics in Simulation Tool

(IDP2) Develop Data Input Tools

(IDP1) Gather Traffic Recordings

(ICV1) Execute Initial Simulation Runs

(ICV3) Document Initial Simulation Results

(CVU2.3) Modify Charts – if necessary(CVU2.4) Refine Chart Scenarios

(CVU2.6) Analyze Update 2

(CVU2.1) Update UAS Charts

(CVU2.2) Gather SME Feedback

(CVU2.5) Execute Update 2 Simul.

(CVU2.7) Doc. Final Sims

(ICV2) Analyze Initial Simulation Runs

(ICV4) TIM to Discuss Results of Initial Simulation Runs

(CVU2.9) Document Final Results & Methodology 4

(CVU1.3) Modify Updated UAS Charts – if necessary(CVU1.4) Refine UAS Chart Scenarios in Simulation Tool

(CVU1.6) Analyze Update 1 of Simulation Runs

(CVU1.1) Update UAS Charts

(CVU1.2) Gather SME Feedback on Updated Charts

(CVU1.5) Execute Update 1 of Simulation Runs

(CVU1.7) Document Update 1 of Simulation Results(CVU1.8) TIM to Discuss Results of Update 1 Simulation Runs (CVU2.8) Final TIM

3

Initial UAS Procedure Chart Delivered

Project Complete

Domain:En route airspace, Terminal, Airport Primary Capabilities: Simulation, conflict prediction, conflict resolution, visual demonstration, and metrics Primary Use:Analysis of procedures, decision support tools Past/Current usage:IADCS, SVO, UAS DOD JT, Wx Requirements, ORC

Air Traffic Optimization (AirTOp)AirTOp is a gate-to-gate continuous fast-time simulator, with a multi-agent architecture. It can simulate en-route, approach and ground operations, and combinations of the three. AirTOp evaluates, among others, capacity, delay, flight efficiency, safety and controller workload related metrics.

Scenario Information• Types and Number

Baseline (NAS flights only) - 2 Nominal (NAS flights + UAS no contingency) - 12 Contingency (NAS flights + UAS contingency) - 24

• Manned traffic Based on flows seen in ~60 days of operational data Increased to 50-60 flights per hour in RAPCON

• Airports KRDR and KGFK North and South Flows modeled

6

Iterative Approach & Objectives• 3 Iterations• Compare Nominal versus Baseline

Answers key question: how does UAS impact the NAS when UAS follows standardized procedure?

• Compare Contingency versus Baseline Answers key question: how does UAS

impact the NAS when UAS follows standardized procedure and experiences a loss of link?

• Compare Contingency versus Nominal Answers key question: what impact is added

to the NAS when UAS follows standardized procedure and experiences a loss of link?

7

{Step A}DOD Delivers Current

UAS Approach/Departure Plate

{Step B}FAA Configures

Simulation Tool for UAS Plate

{Step C}FAA Runs Simulation

Tool and Provides Results

{Step D}Technical

Interchange Meeting to Discuss

Results

{Step E} Changes

Required ?

Yes,Repeat Iteration

No

{Step F} Task Complete, Results

Documented for Final UAS Plate

Analysis • Aircraft Performance Verification (First Iteration Only)• UAS Conflict Analysis• Propensity

The likelihood of a safety significant event occurring during normal operations

• Separation Event Counts Conflict/Loss of Separation: < 3nm or < 1000 ft. Encounter: < 9nm or < 3000 ft.

• Separation Statistics Minimum max-ratio (MMR) Minimum horizontal separation (MH) Minimum vertical separation (MV)

8

Aircraft Performance Verification

9

UAS Conflict Analysis

10

In this case, found need to move a waypoint due to route proximity with NAS traffic.

11

Latit

ude

Longitude

HOGER

PTRBG

LAKTO

NRTWDHONNE

CONWY

PISEKLANKN

AGECU

Lower Propensity

Higher Propensity

Conceptual Propensity Map

Propensity Chart: Shadow

12

Separation Event Counts

13

Separation Statistics

14

Min Max Ratio

Simulation Conclusions

• Radius of Holding Pattern (CHP and FTP) Global Hawk can’t meet 1.5NM turn radius above

18,000ft Above RAPCON airspace, separate procedures

should be used

• The Grand Forks UA procedures don’t add many conflicts to the RAPCON area

• Potential risk is found in many areas on the routes Important to note for the HITL scenario development

15

HITL Recommendations

• Potential Areas of Risk to Study UA arrival at KRDR may conflict with KGFK arrivals Shadow arrival with other KRDR arrival

o New parallel runway operations Lost Link on departure may conflict with overflights Lost Link on arrival, regained at SCOTT

o Path SCOTT to IAF involves sequencing with KGFK arrivals Hold at IAF may conflict with KGFK arrivals Global Hawk Lost Link on departure

ANETA to GLIIB and LANKN to HONNE Path crosses the airspace and may conflict with KGFK arrivals

16

For ANG-C41’s Phase 1 TaskDelivered Final Report

• Documents UAS chart validation study performed to support subsequent human-in-the-loop (HITL) for DOD

• FAA ANG-C41 planned, developed, conducted, and analyzed a set of concise iterative fast-time computer simulation experiments to perform this study

• Key research questions: Can the UAS fly the standardized procedures? What are their simulated impact on the NAS?

• Also, specific recommendations were made on potential areas of interest when performing the HITL experiment

17