nasa’s uas integration into the nas: a report on the human … · 2019. 8. 30. · project goal,...

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

www.nasa.gov

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA’s UAS Integration into the NAS:

A Report on the Human Systems Integration

Phase 1 Activities

Lisa Fern ([email protected])San Jose State University

Conrad Rorie ([email protected])San Jose State University

Jay Shively ([email protected])NASA Ames Research Center

Presented To: The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society’s 2014 International Annual Meeting

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20190001976 2019-08-30T22:36:40+00:00Z

Certification

PE

Kelly Hayhurst

LaRC

Lead Resource Analyst – Cindy Brandvig - AFRC

Lead Procurement Officer – R. Toberman - AFRC

Lead Scheduler – John Percy - AFRC

Mgmt Support Specialist– Jamie Turner - AFRC

Administrative Support – Giovanna Bowen - AFRC

Bus. Sys. Coordinator – Stacey Mulligan - AFRC

Project Support

AFRC Director of Programs Dennis Hines

Deputy Director: Joel Sitz

Host Center

ISRP Program Director Dr. Ed Waggoner

Deputy PD: Cathy Bahm

Program Office

ExCom, RTCA Steering Committee, UAS

Aviation Rulemaking Committee

Project Manager - Laurie Grindle - AFRC

Deputy Project Manager – Robert Sakahara – AFRC

Deputy Project Manager, Integration – Davis Hackenberg - AFRC

Chief Systems Engineer – Debra Randall – AFRC

Staff Systems Engineer – Dan Roth - AFRC

DPMf – AFRCHeather Maliska

DPMf – GRC Amy

Jankovsky

DPMf – LaRCVince

Schultz

Project OfficeExternal Interfaces

FAA, DoD, RTCA SC-228, Industry, etc.

Senior Advisor: VACANT

AFRC ARDARC ARDGRC ARDLaRC ARD

Subprojects/Technical Challenges (TC)

TC-SAA: SAA Performance Standards

Separation Assurance/Sense and Avoid

Interoperability (SSI)

Co-PEs

Confesor Santiago - ARC

Maria Consiglio - LaRC

TC-C2: C2 Performance Standards

Communications

PE

Jim Griner - GRC

TC-HSI: Human Systems Integration (HSI)

HSI

PE

Jay Shively - ARC

TC-ITE: Integrated Test and Evaluation (IT&E)

IT&E

Co-PEs

Sam Kim - AFRC

Jim Murphy - ARC

PE: Project Engineer, DPMf: Deputy Project Manager for

DPMf – ARCMatt

Knudson

UAS Integration in the NAS Organizational Structure

2

Project Goal, Research Themes, & Technical Challenges

3

TC-SAA:

Sense and Avoid

Performance

Standards

TC-C2:

Command & Control

Performance

Standards

TC-HSI: Human

Systems Integration

TC-ITE: Integrated

Test & Evaluation

Research Theme 1: UAS Integration - Airspace integration procedures and performance

standards to enable UAS integration in the air transportation system

Research Theme 2: Test Infrastructure - Test infrastructure to enable development and

validation of airspace integration procedures and performance standards

Goal: Provide research findings to reduce technical barriers associated

with integrating Unmanned Aircraft Systems into the National Airspace

System utilizing integrated system level tests in a relevant environment

HSI Goal, Research Themes, & Technical Challenges

4

Research Theme 1: UAS Integration -

Airspace integration procedures and

performance standards to enable UAS

integration in the air transportation system

Research Theme 2: Test Infrastructure -

Test infrastructure to enable development

and validation of airspace integration

procedures and performance standards

Goal: Provide research findings to reduce technical barriers associated

with integrating Unmanned Aircraft Systems into the National Airspace

System utilizing integrated system level tests in a relevant environment

HSI Objective 1: Develop Ground

Control Station (GCS) Guidelines

to operate in the NAS

HSI Objective 2: Develop a

prototype display suite within an

existing GCS

1. Provides a database to support guidelines development2. Provides an instantiated proof of concept for those guidelines3. Serves as a test bed for UAS pilot procedures and displays

Human Systems Integration (HSI) Overview

5

Phase Project Goals HSI Technical Activities

12011-2013

Determine the technical barriers to routinely access the NAS and identify specific issues that need to be addressed to achieve integration

22014-2017

Reduce barriers through maturing research capabilities, development, modeling and simulation, and live flight demonstration


6


12011-2013


1. Workshop with HF experts to identify key HF issues for UAS integration

22014-2017



7


12011-2013



2. Minimum information requirements analysis for GCS displays

22014-2017



8


12011-2013




3. Development of GCS test bed and simulation capabilities

22014-2017



9


12011-2013





4. Simulation experiments to examine: • UAS pilot performance under various

operating and GCS configurations• The impact of nominal and off-nominal

UAS operations on Air Traffic Control (ATC) performance and workload

22014-2017



10


12011-2013








22014-2017


1. Simulation experiments to identify minimum detect and avoid display requirements


11


12011-2013








22014-2017



2. Flight tests to validate and verify simulation results in relevant, live flight environment


12


12011-2013








22014-2017




3. Development of Minimum Operational Performance Standards and Guidelines


13


1 Determine the technical barriers to routinely access the NAS and identify specific issues that need to be addressed to achieve integration







2 Reduce barriers through maturing research capabilities, development, modeling and simulation, and live flight demonstration




GCS Test Bed and Simulation Capabilities:

Ground Control Station (GCS)

14

Multiple UAS Simulator (MUSIM)



15

Vigilant Spirit Control Station (VSCS)

Vigilant Spirit Control Station (AFRL/RH). Distribution A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 88ABW Cleared

3/18/2013; 88ABW-2013-1303.



16

• The Vigilant Spirit Control Station

(VSCS) developed by the Air Force

Research Laboratory (AFRL)

• Main Features:

o Robust, flexible interface

o Realistic control and navigation displays

o System status and health monitoring

o Multi-UAS control with VSCS has been

tested in simulation and flight by AFRL

o STANAG 4586 Compliant

• Current UAS in the NAS version

modifications/additions:

o Single pilot – single UAS control

o NAS-compatible database (low- and

high- altitude charts with navigational

aids/”fixes”)

o Integrated traffic display


Cockpit Situation Display (CSD)

17

• The Cockpit Situation Display (CSD)

developed by the Flight Deck Display

Research Laboratory (FDDRL) at NASA

Ames Research Center

• Main Features:

o 3D Volumetric Display

o Capable of displaying locations and 4D

trajectories of ownship and intruder aircraft

o Built in logic for conflict detection and

resolution

4D trial planning



o Limited to 2D orientation

o Integration with UAS in the NAS Live Virtual

Constructive (LVC) simulation environment

Display of conflict detection, alerting and

resolution based on external algorithms

2D trial planning (horizontal and vertical)


Multi Aircraft Control Station (MACS)

18

• The Multi Aircraft Control Station

(MACS) developed by the Airspace

Operations Laboratory (AOL) at NASA


• Main Features:

o Emulation of ground- and air- side Air

Traffic Control (ATC) operations

o Simulated traffic generator

o Controller work stations

o Psuedo pilot work stations



o Traffic scenarios in Oakland Center

(ZOA 40/41) airspace based on current

day traffic patterns

o VFR traffic

o Customized display features to

maximize realism and flexibility

Air Traffic Control Station

Pseudo Pilot Station


Sense and Avoid Processor (SAA Proc)

19

• The Sense and Avoid Processor developed by the SSI sub-project at NASA


• Main Functions:

o Receives state information from simulated traffic (MACS)

Determines which aircraft to show on traffic display(s) based on surveillance

parameters

o Receives trajectory information from UAS ownship (VSCS)

o Queries all intruders for potential conflicts with ownship

o Assigns intruders threat levels based on given thresholds

o Hosts self-separation and collision avoidance algorithms which can provide conflict

resolution guidance

07

02

00

0.8nm

1.2nm

2nm25

10

00

GCS Test Bed and Simulation Capabilities

20

Vigilant Spirit Control Station

SAA Display (CSD)

LVC Gateway

MACS

UAS Ground Control Station Configuration

Pseudo Pilot Station ATC Station

MACS

Sense and Avoid Processor

ADRS

MACS Traffic Generator

Main results/conclusions:• ATC reported appropriate and immediate compliance by UAS pilots, and sufficient knowledge of

the airspace and required procedures• No effect of traffic display on maintenance of separation in Class A airspace• Potential benefits to both Pilots and Controllers when a traffic display is present in the GCS

• significantly higher pilot SA on several dimensions • significantly lower workload for pilots when communicating with ATC

Objectives:1. Examine baseline compliance of UAS operations in the current airspace system2. Examine the effects of introducing a traffic display into a UAS ground control station on

pilot performance, workload and situation awareness

Pilot SA

Pilot Workload

Simulation 1: Baseline Compliance

Main results/conclusions:• Contingency procedures had no significant effect on objective measures of sector safety or

efficiency; none differed significantly from baseline (no contingency)• No significant differences in self-reported workload or situation awareness of the ATC participants• Participants preferred procedures that minimized deviations and/or provided them with sufficient

time to manage nearby aircraft in preparation for pre-planned deviations• Highlights need for standard and predictable contingency procedures

Objective: to examine the effects of various, currently-employed UAS contingency procedures on sector safety and efficiency, and ATC workload.o Four contingency procedures compared to no contingencyo Two main categories of contingencies: lost link and critical systems failure

Simulation 2: Contingency Management

ID Event Contingency Behavior Time to Execute

C1 Baseline N/A N/A

C2 Lost Link Return to base 1 min

C3 Lost Link Return to base 8 min

C4 Lost LinkMaintain pre-programmed course, return to mission altitude

1 min

C5Drop in Oil Pressure

Land at emergency site Immediate

Main results/conclusions:• Waypoint-to-waypoint control mode demonstrated significant deficits in all of the pilot measured

response components compared to AP and M• AP and M had significantly shorter compliance times overall than WP• These results provide the initial database of expected pilot response time distributions, which will

be critical to determining the Minimum Operational Performance Standards for UAS in the NAS• Acceptability of C2 interfaces depends on the allowable response times given equipment

performance specifications (i.e., sensors, aircraft performance, etc.)

Objective: to examine the effects of three different command and control (C2) interfaces on UAS pilots’ ability to respond to ATC commands:

1. Waypoint-to-Waypoint only (WP; baseline)2. Autopilot (quick input interface)3. Manual (stick and throttle)

Simulation 3: Control Interfaces

0

2

4

6

8

10

WP AP M

Seco

nd

s

Control Mode

Pilot Response Time Pilot Edit Time

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

WP AP M

Seco

nd

s

Control Mode

Phase 2 Activities


o Minimum display requirements

o Advanced information and pilot guidance

o Stand alone versus integrated displays

o Evaluation of boundary between self-separation, collision avoidance and autonomous collision avoidance


o ACAS Xu Flight Test NOV 2014

o Flight Test 3 JUL 2015

o Flight Test 4 APR 2016


o RTCA Special Committee 228: Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for Unmanned Aircraft System for Detect and Avoid (DAA) and Command and Control (C2)

o Phase I MOPS due July 2016

o General GCS Requirements

Will include those requirements not covered within the DAA and C2 sections of the SC-228 MOPS

To be published as a NASA report

24

Questions?

25

nasa’s uas integration into the nas: a report on the human … · 2019. 8. 30. · project goal,...

Documents