Search

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.

New technical standards for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) detect and avoid (DAA) systems mark recent progress toward realizing the goal of full integration of UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS). The DAA system is intended to provide a means of compliance with operating regulations that required pilots on board manned aircraft to remain "well clear" of other aircraft which is accomplished through out-the-window visual acquisition of other aircraft and application of a subjective judgment of safe separation. The requirements for the DAA system, including the specification of a DAA well clear threshold as well as functional requirements for detecting, tracking, alerting and guidance processing, and displays, are specified in DO-365, Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for DAA Systems developed within RTCA Special Committee 228 (SC-228). Intended as the first in a series of phased versions, these requirements are frequently referred to as the "Phase 1" DAA system. The Phase 1 DAA system is limited for use by aircraft transitioning to and from Class A or special use airspace, through Class D, E, and G airspace. In particular, the Phase 1 DAA MOPS are not intended for terminal airspace operations, a critical gap for enabling a full range of UAS operations. The application of the Phase 1 DAA system and DAA well clear threshold within the terminal area is predicted to result in a high number of unnecessary alerts when the UAS is safely separated from other traffic. The goal of the present study was to examine pilot performance and operational issues related to the operation of the Phase 1 DAA system in a terminal area. This experiment was intended as an exploratory study that would be used to inform the development of a new terminal area-specific DAA well clear definition, and associated alerting and guidance requirements. The two main objectives of this study were to: 1) characterize pilot behavior in the terminal environment with the Phase 1 DAA system, and 2) investigate the effect of modifications to the Phase 1 DAA alerting and guidance structure. In particular, the authors were interested in determining whether the removal of specific alerting and guidance levels, without changing the DAA well clear definition or alerting thresholds, would impact pilot performance while conducting terminal operations. The results indicate that the Phase 1 well clear definition and alerting and guidance resulted in frequent alerting that degraded pilots' ability to discriminate between encounters where another aircraft was safely separated versus when a maneuver was necessary. The resulting impact on pilot performance was slower response times and higher frequency and severity of losses of DAA well clear compared to those observed for experiments examining pilot performance in the en route environment. There was no significant effect of alerting and guidance display configuration on pilot performance.

NASA's Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) integration into the National Air Space (NAS) project has been working closely with the FAA and RTCA Special Committee 228 to identify and break down barriers to UAS integration. A focus of this work is on detect and avoid (DAA) technologies. A pilot has responsibility to see and avoid other aircraft and to remain "well clear," using their best judgment (Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Sec. 91.113). For UAS to perform this function, the see function is replaced by sensors to detect the other aircraft. Secondly, the pilot judgment of well clear has to be replaced by a mathematical expression. For Phase 1 of this effort, a well clear violation was defined if all three of these conditions are true: a) the horizontal clearance is less than 4000 ft., and b) the vertical clearance is less than 450 ft., and c) the time to loss of well clear is less than 35 seconds. This definition was developed with a great deal of community input and testing to ensure interoperability with Air Traffic Control (ATC) and pilots of manned aircraft. Appropriate guidance, alerting and displays were developed to allow UAS, with the appropriate sensors, to effectively maintain well clear. This work contributed to FAA Technical Standard Orders: TSO-C211, Detect and Avoid and TSO-C212, ATAR for Traffic Surveillance. Phase 2 of this work extends the operational environment to include the terminal area and lesser capable aircraft that might not have the payload capability to carry the RADAR defined in Phase 1. This session reports on work from Phase 1 and initial work in Phase 2.

New technical standards for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) detect and avoid (DAA) systems mark recent progress toward realizing the goal of full integration of UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS). The DAA system is intended to provide a means of compliance with operating regulations that required pilots on board manned aircraft to remain "well clear" of other aircraft which is accomplished through out-the-window visual acquisition of other aircraft and application of a subjective judgment of safe separation. The requirements for the DAA system, including the specification of a DAA well clear threshold as well as functional requirements for detecting, tracking, alerting and guidance processing, and displays, are specified in DO-365, Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for DAA Systems developed within RTCA (Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) Special Committee 228 (SC-228). Intended as the first in a series of phased versions, these requirements are frequently referred to as the "Phase 1" DAA system. The Phase 1 DAA system is limited for use by aircraft transitioning to and from Class A or special use airspace, through Class D, E, and G airspace. In particular, the Phase 1 DAA MOPS are not intended for terminal airspace operations, a critical gap for enabling a full range of UAS operations. The application of the Phase 1 DAA system and DAA well clear threshold within the terminal area is predicted to result in a high number of unnecessary alerts when the UAS is safely separated from other traffic. The goal of the present study was to examine pilot performance and operational issues related to the operation of the Phase 1 DAA system in a terminal area. This experiment was intended as an exploratory study that would be used to inform the development of a new terminal area-specific DAA well clear definition, and associated alerting and guidance requirements. The two main objectives of this study were to: 1) characterize pilot behavior in the terminal environment with the Phase 1 DAA system, and 2) investigate the effect of modifications to the Phase 1 DAA alerting and guidance structure. In particular, the authors were interested in determining whether the removal of specific alerting and guidance levels, without changing the DAA well clear definition or alerting thresholds, would impact pilot performance while conducting terminal operations. The results indicate that the Phase 1 well clear definition and alerting and guidance resulted in frequent alerting that degraded pilots' ability to discriminate between encounters where another aircraft was safely separated versus when a maneuver was necessary. The resulting impact on pilot performance was slower response times and higher frequency and severity of losses of DAA well clear compared to those observed for experiments examining pilot performance in the en route environment. There was no significant effect of alerting and guidance display configuration on pilot performance.

The integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS) poses a variety of technical challenges to UAS developers and aviation regulators. In response to growing demand for access to civil airspace in the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has produced a roadmap identifying key areas requiring further research and development. One such technical challenge is the development of a "detect and avoid" system (DAA) capable of providing a means of compliance with the "see and avoid" requirement in manned aviation. The purpose of the DAA system is to support the pilot, situated at a ground control station (GCS), in maintaining "DAA well clear" of nearby aircraft through the use of GCS displays and alerts. In addition to its primary function of aiding the pilot in maintaining DAA well clear, the DAA system must also safely interoperate with existing NAS systems and operations, such as the airspace management procedures of air traffic controllers (ATC) and Collision Avoidance (CA) systems currently in use by manned aircraft, namely the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS II). It is anticipated that many UAS architectures will integrate both a DAA system and a TCAS II. It is therefore necessary to explicitly study the integration of DAA and TCAS II alerting structures and maneuver guidance formats to ensure that pilots understand the appropriate type and urgency of their response to the various alerts. This paper presents a concept of interoperability for the two systems. The concept was developed with the goal of avoiding any negative impact on the performance level of TCAS II while retaining a DAA system that still effectively enables pilots to maintain DAA well clear. The interoperability concept described in the paper focuses primarily on facilitating the transition from a late-stage DAA encounter (where a loss of DAA well clear is imminent) to a TCAS II Corrective Resolution Advisory (RA), which requires pilot compliance within five seconds of its issuance. The interoperability concept was presented to 10 participants (6 active UAS pilots and 4 active commercial pilots) in a medium-fidelity, human-in-the-loop simulation designed to stress different aspects of the DAA and TCAS II systems. Pilots' ability to maintain separation, their rate of compliance and response times using the interoperability concept are reported. Results indicated that pilots exhibited comprehension of, and appropriate prioritization within, the DAA-TCAS II combined alert structure. Pilots demonstrated a high rate of compliance with TCAS II RAs and were also seen to respond to corrective RAs within the five second requirement established for manned aircraft. The DAA system presented under test was also shown to be effective in supporting pilots' ability to maintain DAA well clear in the overwhelming majority of cases in which pilots had sufficient time to respond.

New concepts of operations for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) will require a change from the current 2:1 operator to vehicle crew configuration. One particular control paradigm, largely driven by logistics, manpower, and training burdens, as well as the desire to force multiply, involves a single operator simultaneously managing multiple UAVs. This mode of operations has shown to significantly increase cognitive workload and decrease situation awareness, as operators are required to simultaneously attend to multiple sources of information. One potential way to mitigate potential drawbacks of multi-vehicle control by a single operator is to migrate to a multi-operator multi-UAV (MOMU) crew configuration, whereby M operators control N (> M) vehicles. This type of crew configuration can be organized in several ways to dynamically manage cognitive workload, match operator qualifications and skills to mission requirements, increase utilization of available assets, and thereby achieve maximum force multiplication. The present experiment examined task performance in a simulated MOMU environment and evaluated the potential benefits of sensor management aids ("Tools") as well as integrated sensor and flight automation ("Plays") compared to a fully manual condition ("Manual"). Tools support the operator by facilitating rapid understanding and management of sensor information, while the Plays support the operator by offloading/automating subtasks. Six pairs of participants were recruited for this study and tasked with sharing a pool of UAVs in order to conduct reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition (RSTA) missions in adjacent Areas of Operation (AOs). Participants were given four tasks to accomplish, in order of priority: 1) prosecute High Value Targets (HVTs); 2) identify / track targets (military vehicles); 3) identify / mark civilian vehicles; and 4) respond to chat messages. Performance on the mission tasks was measured in terms of accuracy and reaction time. A composite mission score was also calculated using a payoff matrix that weighted each task according to priority. The results indicate that Playbook demonstrated better performance overall with higher accuracy rates and the highest composite score compared to Tools and Manual. The implications of these results to supporting future MOMU concepts of operations is discussed.

This presentation covers the primary results of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project Terminal Operations Foundational Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) simulation. The study tasked 16 pilots (half with manned piloting experience, and the other half with unmanned piloting experience) with maintaining "well clear" from other traffic while performing three different types of approaches into the Santa Rosa airport. A detect and avoid (DAA) system was provided to pilots to assist their ability to manage separation. The DAA system used in this test conformed to the criteria defined by RTCA Special Committee 228 (SC-228) in their Phase 1 Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for UAS intending to operate in the NAS. The Phase 1 system was not designed to account for terminal operations, focusing instead on en route operations. To account for this, three different alerting and guidance configurations were presently tested in order to determine their effect on pilots operating the system in the terminal area. Results indicated that pilots with the alerting and guidance condition that provided the least amount of assistance (fewer alert levels and guidance types) experienced slightly increased pilot response times and rates of losses of separation. Additional data is presented on the effects of approach type and descriptive data on pilot maneuver preferences and ATC interoperability.

This schedule discusses which HiTLs will be run and the timeframe for each event. This document also discusses system architecture and data flow. The simulation environments is also briefly addressed in the document including: the ground control station and the supported simulation software.

This presentation summarizes the simulation work conducted by the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project. It focuses on the contribution of that research to the development of RTCA Special Committee 228's (SC-228) Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for UAS. The research objectives and primary findings from four different human-in-the-loop simulations are discussed, along with the specific requirements these studies led to in the final MOPS document.

The full integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS), a prerequisite for enabling a broad range of public and commercial UAS operations, presents several technical challenges to UAS developers, operators and regulators. A primary barrier is the inability for UAS pilots (situated at a ground control station, or GCS) to comply with Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations sections 91.111 and 91.113, which require pilots to see and avoid other aircraft in order to maintain well clear. The present study is the final in a series of human-in-the-loop experiments designed to explore and test the various display and alerting requirements being incorporated into the minimum operational performance standards (MOPS) for a UAS-specific detect and avoid system that would replace the see and avoid function required of manned aircraft. Two display configurations were tested - an integrated display and a standalone display - and their impact on pilot response times and ability to maintain DAA well clear were compared. Results indicated that the current draft of the MOPS result in high-level performance and did not meaningfully differ by display configuration.

The full integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS), a prerequisite for enabling a broad range of public and commercial UAS operations, presents several technical challenges to UAS developers, operators and regulators. A primary barrier is the inability for UAS pilots (situated at a ground control station, or GCS) to comply with Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations sections 91.111 and 91.113, which require pilots to “see and avoid” other aircraft in order to maintain well clear. UAS pilots’ removal from the flight deck of the aircraft necessitates the development of a UAS-specific system for detecting nearby traffic and displaying traffic information to the pilot to support their ability to maintain an objectively defined “DAA well clear” threshold from other aircraft. This new UAS-specific function of remaining DAA well clear is called traffic avoidance. The resulting Detect and Avoid (DAA) system, however, will be subject to a collection of requirements that manufacturers will be obligated to meet in order to certify their equipment. RTCA Special Committee 228 (SC-228), a consortium of representatives from government, industry and academia, is responsible for developing and documenting the Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for UAS DAA systems. The present study is the final in a series of human-in-the-loop (HITL) experiments designed to explore and test the various display and alerting requirements being incorporated into the DAA MOPS. Whereas the prior DAA HITLs examined a wide variety of DAA display features and concepts, the current experiment aims to validate the latest minimum display requirements for Phase 1 of the DAA MOPS. Rather than test different display concepts, this study tests two configurations of a MOPS-compatible DAA display: a version that is integrated into the primary navigation and control display of the GCS and a version that is physically separated from the primary display. This manipulation tests the draft minimum requirement that allows the DAA traffic display to be a separate, or standalone, configuration. This type of configuration is a more achievable near-term technology solution since it does not stipulate additional certification or integration requirements on UAS manufacturers. However, a standalone display configuration has the potential to result in pilot performance issues resulting from the cognitive costs of switching between the primary DAA display and the primary navigation and control display. This configuration is also particularly susceptible to errors if the displays are in different orientations (e.g., north-up versus track-up). Both the integrated and standalone display configurations were presented to 16 active UAS pilots in a medium-fidelity simulation, which included confederate air traffic controllers and pseudo pilots operating simulated manned traffic. Pilots were tasked with navigating two different mission routes while maintaining DAA well clear with scripted conflicts. Pilot response times (i.e., measured response) and ability to remain DAA well clear are reported. Primary results indicate that both display configurations resulted in favorable response times and well clear rates. While there were clear trends of pilots objectively performing better in the integrated display condition, with several measured response metrics reaching statistical significance, the differences between the two displays were typically moderate. While the primary variable of DAA display location did not have an especially large impact on pilot performance on its own, when examined alongside the type of DAA threat the pilot was facing (a caution-level versus a warning-level alert), the response time benefits associated with the integrated display were amplified. The implications of these American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 2 results on the Phase 1 DAA MOPS and the connection of this data to previous studies is also discussed.

The primary activity for the UAS-NAS Human Systems Integration (HSI) sub-project in Phase 1 was support of RTCA Special Committee 228 Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS). We provide data on the effect of various Detect and Avoid (DAA) display features with respect to pilot performance of the remain well clear function in order to determine the minimum requirements for DAA displays.

The Phase 1 DAA Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) provided requirements for two classes of DAA equipment: equipment Class 1 contains the basic DAA equipment required to assist a pilot in remaining well clear, while equipment Class 2 integrates the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance (TCAS) II system. Thus, the Class 1 system provides RWC functionality only, while the Class 2 system is intended to provide both RWC and Collision Avoidance (CA) functionality, in compliance with the Minimum Aviation System Performance (MASPS) for the Interoperability of Airborne Collision Avoidance Systems. The FAAs TCAS Program Office is currently developing Airborne Collision Avoidance System X (ACAS X) to support the objectives of the Federal Aviation Administrations (FAA) Next Generation Air Transportation System Program (NextGen). ACAS X has a suite of variants with a common underlying design that are intended to be optimized for their intended airframes and operations. ACAS Xu being is designed for UAS and allows for new surveillance technologies and tailored logic for platforms with different performance characteristics. In addition to Collision Avoidance (CA) alerting and guidance, ACAS Xu is being tuned to provide RWC alerting and guidance in compliance with the SC 228 DAA MOPS. With a single logic performing both RWC and CA functions, ACAS Xu will provide industry with an integrated DAA solution that addresses many of the interoperability shortcomings of Phase I systems. While the MOPS for ACAS Xu will specify an integrated DAA system, it will need to show compliance with the RWC alerting thresholds and alerting requirements defined in the DAA Phase 2 MOPS. Further, some functional components of the ACAS Xu system such as the remote pilots displayed guidance might be mostly references to the corresponding requirements in the DAA MOPS. To provide a seamless, integrated, RWC-CA system to assist the pilot in remaining well clear and avoiding collisions, several issues need to be addressed within the Phase 2 SC-228 DAA efforts. Interoperability of the RWC and CA alerting and guidance, and ensuring pilot comprehension, compliance and performance, will be a primary research area.

This white paper summarizes NASA research results that have informed Special Committee 228 (SC-228) discussions and decisions regarding the inclusion of a warning-level alert within the detect and avoid (DAA) alerting structure for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). For UAS, the removal of the pilot from onboard the aircraft has eliminated the ability of the ground-based pilot in command (PIC) to use out-the-window visual information to make judgments about a potential threat of a loss of well clear with another aircraft. As a result, the DAA traffic display will be the primary source of information that the PIC can use to execute the three primary well clear functions: 1) detect a potential loss of well clear, 2) determine a resolution maneuver, and 3) upload that maneuver to the aircraft via the ground control station (GCS). In addition, pilots are required to coordinate with air traffic control (ATC) prior to maneuvering off of their approved flight plan. In determining an appropriate resolution maneuver to avoid a loss of well clear, the PIC must decide both when and how to maneuver, and both the timeliness and the accuracy (i.e., correctness) of the maneuver are critical to reducing the likelihood and/or severity of a loss of well clear. Alerting information is one of three critical components of the DAA display, along with traffic information elements (e.g., relative heading, speed and altitude) and maneuver guidance. Alerting information and maneuver guidance, in particular, have been found to have a significant impact, both statistically and practically, on pilots' ability to avoid and minimize the severity of losses of well clear While all three display components are key to pilots performing the traffic avoidance task of remaining well clear, in general, alerting information provides crucial information about when a resolution maneuver is required while maneuver guidance assists the pilot in determining how best to maneuver. A fundamental task of the DAA alerting system is to provide critical timing information to the pilot about the potential for a loss of well clear with another aircraft. This is done by employing both temporal and spatial thresholds that indicate to the pilot the likelihood and imminence of a loss of well clear. The design of the DAA alerting thresholds is a balancing act between eliciting the desired pilot response in real loss of well clear threat events and reducing excessive, unnecessary, and/or uncoordinated UAS maneuvering within the air traffic environment; larger thresholds, both spatially and temporally, may increase the likelihood of a pilot avoiding a loss of well clear, but it can also increase the frequency of maneuvering - especially in cases where a maneuver is not actually needed to maintain well clear. A series of human in the loop (HITL) simulations have been conducted as part of NASA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) project. The purpose of these HITLs has been to provide empirical results in order to inform development of the minimum human-machine interface requirements for the DAA system. This white paper will present those results which provide evidence of a human performance benefit (in terms of response times and ability to remain well clear of other aircraft) of the DAA warning alert both with and without a collision avoidance system on board the aircraft.

This is a presentation of the preliminary results on final V and V (Verification and Validation) activity of [RTCA (Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics)] SC (Special Committee)-228 DAA (Detect and Avoid) HMI (Human-Machine Interface) requirements for display alerting and guidance.

The UAS-NAS Project demo will showcase recent research efforts to ensure the interoperability between proposed UAS detect and avoid (DAA) human machine interface requirements (developed within RTCA SC-228) and existing collision avoidance displays. Attendees will be able to view the current state of the art of the DAA pilot traffic, alerting and guidance displays integrated with Traffic advisory and Collision Avoidance (TCAS) II in the UAS-NAS Project's research UAS ground control station (developed in partnership with the Air Force Research Laboratory). In addition, attendees will have the opportunity to interact with the research UAS ground control station and "fly" encounters, using the DAA and TCAS II displays to avoid simulated aircraft. The display of the advisories will be hosted on a laptop with an external 30" monitor, running the Vigilant Spririt system. DAA advisories will be generated by the JADEM software tool, connected to the system via the LVC Gateway. A repeater of the primary flight display will be shown on a 55" tv/monitor mounted on a stand at the back of the booth to show the pilot interaction to the passersby.

The UAS-NAS Project demo will showcase recent research efforts to ensure the interoperability between proposed UAS detect and avoid (DAA) human machine interface requirements (developed within RTCA SC-228) and existing collision avoidance displays. Attendees will be able to view the current state of the art of the DAA pilot traffic, alerting and guidance displays integrated with Traffic advisory and Collision Avoidance (TCAS) II in the UAS-NAS Project's research UAS ground control station (developed in partnership with the Air Force Research Laboratory). In addition, attendees will have the opportunity to interact with the research UAS ground control station and "fly" encounters, using the DAA and TCAS II displays to avoid simulated aircraft. The display of the advisories will be hosted on a laptop with an external 30" monitor, running the Vigilant Spirit system. DAA advisories will be generated by the JADEM software tool, connected to the system via the LVC Gateway. A repeater of the primary flight display will be shown on a 55" monitor mounted on a stand at the back of the booth to show the pilot interaction to the passersby.

At the May 2015 SC-228 meeting, requirements for TCAS II interoperability became elevated in priority. A TCAS interoperability work group was formed to identify and address key issuesquestions. The TCAS work group came up with an initial list of questions and a plan to address those questions. As part of that plan, NASA proposed to run a mini HITL to address display, alerting and guidance issues. A TCAS Interoperability Workshop was held to determine potential displayalertingguidance issues that could be explored in future NASA mini HITLS. Consensus on main functionality of DAA guidance when TCAS II RA occurs. Prioritized list of independent variables for experimental design. Set of use cases to stress TCAS Interoperability.

At the May 2015 SC-228 meeting, requirements for TCAS II interoperability became elevated in priority. A TCAS interoperability workgroup was formed to identify and address key issues/questions. The TCAS workgroup came up with an initial list of questions and a plan to address those questions. As part of that plan, NASA proposed to run a mini HITL to address display, alerting and guidance issues. A TCAS Interoperability Workshop was held to determine potential display/alerting/guidance issues that could be explored in future NASA mini HITLS. Consensus on main functionality of DAA guidance when TCAS II RA occurs. Prioritized list of independent variables for experimental design. Set of use cases to stress TCAS Interoperability.

This presentation provides an overview of subjective data from the TCAS Mini HITL simulation.

This presentation discusses the results of a recent UAS Integration into the NAS human-in-the-loop simulation. In the study, 16 active UAS pilots flew a UAS through civil airspace and were tasked with maintaining well clear from other aircraft in the area. Pilots performed the task with four different detect and avoid (DAA) traffic displays, each of which varied in the form of guidance it provided to pilots The present findings focus on how the different displays impacted pilots' measured response to scripted conflicts with their aircraft. Measured response is made up of several components, each of which help inform our understanding of the pilots' role in the overall detect and avoid task.

This document examines the challenges inherent in designing and regulating to support human-automation interaction for new technologies that will deployed into complex systems. A key question for new technologies, is how work will be accomplished by the human and machine agents. This question has traditionally been framed as how functions should be allocated between humans and machines. Such framing misses the coordination and synchronization that is needed for the different human and machine roles in the system to accomplish their goals. Coordination and synchronization demands are driven by the underlying human-automation architecture of the new technology, which are typically not specified explicitly by the designers. The human machine interface (HMI) which is intended to facilitate human-machine interaction and cooperation, however, typically is defined explicitly and therefore serves as a proxy for human-automation cooperation requirements with respect to technical standards for technologies. Unfortunately, mismatches between the HMI and the coordination and synchronization demands of the underlying human-automation architecture, can lead to system breakdowns. A methodology is needed that both designers and regulators can utilize to evaluate the expected performance of a new technology given potential human-automation architectures. Three experiments were conducted to inform the minimum HMI requirements a detect and avoid system for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). The results of the experiments provided empirical input to specific minimum operational performance standards that UAS manufacturers will have to meet in order to operate UAS in the National Airspace System (NAS). These studies represent a success story for how to objectively and systematically evaluate prototype technologies as part of the process for developing regulatory requirements. They also provide an opportunity to reflect on the lessons learned from a recent research effort in order to improve the methodology for defining technology requirements for regulators in the future. The biggest shortcoming of the presented research program was the absence of the explicit definition, generation and analysis of potential human-automation architectures. Failure to execute this step in the research process resulted in less efficient evaluation of the candidate prototypes technologies in addition to the complete absence of different approaches to human-automation cooperation. For example, all of the prototype technologies that were evaluated in the research program assumed a human-automation architecture that relied on serial processing from the automation to the human. While this type of human-automation architecture is typical across many different technologies and in many different domains, it ignores different architectures where humans and automation work in parallel. Defining potential human-automation architectures a priori also allows regulators to develop scenarios that will stress the performance boundaries of the technology during the evaluation phase. The importance of adding this step of generating and evaluating candidate human-automation architectures prior to formal empirical evaluation is discussed.

The integrated human-in-the-loop (iHITL) simulation examined the effect of four different Detect-and-Avoid (DAA) display concepts on unmanned aircraft system (UAS) pilots' ability to maintain safe separation. The displays varied in the type and amount of guidance they provided to pilots. The study's background and methodology are discussed, followed by the 'measured response' data (i.e., pilots' end-to-end response time in reacting to traffic alerts on their DAA display). Results indicate that display type had a significant impact on how long pilot's spent interacting with the interface (i.e., edit times).

The pilot-in-the-loop Detect-and-Avoid (DAA) task requires the pilot to carry out three major functions: 1) detect a potential threat, 2) determine an appropriate resolution maneuver, and 3) execute that resolution maneuver via the GCS control and navigation interface(s). The purpose of the present study was to examine two main questions with respect to DAA display considerations that could impact pilots ability to maintain well clear from other aircraft. First, what is the effect of a minimum (or basic) information display compared to an advanced information display on pilot performance? Second, what is the effect of display location on UAS pilot performance? Two levels of information level (basic, advanced) were compared across two levels of display location (standalone, integrated), for a total of four displays. The results indicate that the advanced displays had faster overall response times compared to the basic displays, however, there were no significant differences between the standalone and integrated displays.

This presentation provides an overview of the work the Human Systems Integration (HSI) sub-project has done on detect and avoid (DAA) displays while working on the UAS Integration into the NAS project. Much of the work has been used to support the ongoing development of minimum operational performance standards (MOPS) for UAS by RTCA Special Committee 228. The design and results of three different human-in-the-loop simulations are discussed, with particular emphasis on the role of the UAS pilot in the Self Separation Timeline.

A consortium of government, industry and academia is currently working to establish minimum operational performance standards for Detect and Avoid (DAA) and Control and Communications (C2) systems in order to enable broader integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS). One subset of these performance standards will need to address the DAA display requirements that support an acceptable level of pilot performance. From a pilot's perspective, the DAA task is the maintenance of self separation and collision avoidance from other aircraft, utilizing the available information and controls within the Ground Control Station (GCS), including the DAA display. The pilot-in-the-loop DAA task requires the pilot to carry out three major functions: 1) detect a potential threat, 2) determine an appropriate resolution maneuver, and 3) execute that resolution maneuver via the GCS control and navigation interface(s). The purpose of the present study was to examine two main questions with respect to DAA display considerations that could impact pilots' ability to maintain well clear from other aircraft. First, what is the effect of a minimum (or basic) information display compared to an advanced information display on pilot performance? Second, what is the effect of display location on UAS pilot performance? Two levels of information level (basic, advanced) were compared across two levels of display location (standalone, integrated), for a total of four displays. The authors propose an eight-stage pilot-DAA interaction timeline from which several pilot response time metrics can be extracted. These metrics were compared across the four display conditions. The results indicate that the advanced displays had faster overall response times compared to the basic displays, however, there were no significant differences between the standalone and integrated displays. Implications of the findings on understanding pilot performance on the DAA task, the development of DAA display performance standards, as well as the need for future research are discussed.

The measured response (MR) is the response time of aircraft to Air Traffic Controller (ATCo) commands and clearances. The overall MR can be broken up into several components, including the pilot verbal latencies (MR1), the time between the end of an ATCo clearance and the beginning of the pilots read back, and the execution initiation latency (MR2), the time between the end of the ATCos clearance and when the pilot begins to execute a maneuver. The MR is a crucial concern for the integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS) due to potentially greater latencies stemming from remote pilot communication and command execution. As a result, it is important to quantify what latencies in verbal responding and command execution are acceptable for safe and efficient operations in the NAS. The present studies begin to address these issues in a series of four simulations supported by the UAS Integration into the NAS program.

The integrated human-in-the-loop (iHITL) simulation examined the effect of four different Detect-and-Avoid (DAA) display concepts on unmanned aircraft system (UAS) pilots' ability to maintain safe separation. The displays varied in the type and amount of guidance they provided to pilots. The study's background and methodology are discussed, followed by a presentation of the preliminary 'measured response' data (i.e., pilots' end-to-end response time in reacting to traffic alerts on their DAA display). Results indicate that display type had moderate to no affect on pilot measured response times.

This presentation summarizes the technical activities undertaken by the UAS in the NAS project's Human-Systems Integration team during during it's first phase. The technical activites are discussed in terms of the project's stated mission, research themes and technical challenges. The talk also covers the simulation research that has been performed by the HSI in Phase 1. The end of the presentation lays out the group's plans for Phase 2.

This presentation summarizes the background and primary findings from a study on UAS (Unmanned Aerial Systems) pilots' ability to get 'in-the-loop' when responding to air traffic controller clearances around traffic and weather. Pilots controlled a simulated UAS using three different control mode interfaces: a waypoint-to-waypoint interface, an auto-pilot interface (which allowed heading and altitude holds), and a manual stick-and-throttle interface. Pilots' response times were compared across the three conditions, with the waypoint-to-waypoint interface resulting in the slowest pilot performance in several of the metrics. Conclusions from these findings and limitations of the study are discussed.

The present study examines the effects of three different control mode interfaces on unmanned aerial system (UAS) pilots ability to comply with air traffic controller traffic clearances. Pilots controlled a simulated UAS with a waypoint-only interface, an auto-pilot interface and a manual, stick and throttle interface. Results indicate that pilots are best able to get in-the-loop when provided with auto-pilot and manual control inputs. Limitations to the present study and future analyses are discussed.

In 2011 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) began a five-year Project to address the technical barriers related to routine access of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS). Planned in two phases, the goal of the first phase was to lay the foundations for the Project by identifying those barriers and key issues to be addressed to achieve integration. Phase 1 activities were completed two years into the five-year Project. The purpose of this paper is to review activities within the Human Systems Integration (HSI) subproject in Phase 1 toward its two objectives: 1) develop GCS guidelines for routine UAS access to the NAS, and 2) develop a prototype display suite within an existing Ground Control Station (GCS). The first objective directly addresses a critical barrier for UAS integration into the NAS - a lack of GCS design standards or requirements. First, the paper describes the initial development of a prototype GCS display suite and supporting simulation software capabilities. Then, three simulation experiments utilizing this simulation architecture are summarized. The first experiment sought to determine a baseline performance of UAS pilots operating in civil airspace under current instrument flight rules for manned aircraft. The second experiment examined the effect of currently employed UAS contingency procedures on Air Traffic Control (ATC) participants. The third experiment compared three GCS command and control interfaces on UAS pilot response times in compliance with ATC clearances. The authors discuss how the results of these and future simulation and flight-testing activities contribute to the development of GCS guidelines to support the safe integration of UAS into the NAS. Finally, the planned activities for Phase 2, including an integrated human-in-the-loop simulation and two flight tests are briefly described.

This brief presentation provides a timeline for the steps taken by an unmanned aerial system (UAS) pilot when maneuvering to avoid a conflicting aircraft. This talk also provides time estimates for each step in the timeline utilizing 'measured response' data from previous Human Systems Integration Division simulation research.

Current study examined the impact of four, currently-employed, unmanned aerial system (UAS) contingency procedures on air traffic controller (ATC) workload and performance. Controllers managed a Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) sector while a single UAS passed through their sector. In four of the five scenarios, the UAS was scripted to experience an emergency (e.g., loss of command and control link, sudden drop in oil pressure) and then execute one of four possible contingency maneuvers. The fifth scenario was a baseline and contained no emergency. Results showed no significant differences in performance or workload among the four the study's design discussed.

The goal of the Full Mission Sim was to examine the effects of different command and control interfaces on UAS pilots' ability to respond to ATC commands and traffic advisories. Results suggest that higher levels of automation (i.e., waypoint-to-waypoint control interfaces) lead to longer initial response times and longer edit times. The findings demonstrate the importance of providing pilots with interfaces that facilitate their ability to get back 'in the loop.'

This presentation addresses the work conducted by the Human Systems Integration (HSI) subproject during Phase 1 of the UAS in the NAS project. This includes information on the HSI technical barriers to UAS integration into the NAS, as well as the HSI objectives that address these barriers. The presentation includes brief discussions of the human-in-the-loop simulations conducted by HSI in Phase 1 and concludes with a look at the activities planned for Phase 2.

The goal of the Full Mission Sim was to examine the effects of different command and control interfaces on UAS pilots' ability to respond to ATC commands and traffic advisories. Results suggest that higher levels of automation (i.e., waypoint-to-waypoint control interfaces) lead to longer initial response times and longer edit times. The findings demonstrate the importance of providing pilots with interfaces that facilitate their ability to get back "in the loop."

This is a HSI (Horizontal Situation Indicator) display evaluation overview presented to the RTCA (Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) SC-228 Detect and Avoid Working group. The goal of the presentation is to provide data on the effect of various Detect and Avoid (DAA) display and guidance features with respect to pilot performance of the self-separation function in order to determine the minimum information requirements for DAA displays.

As a result of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) are expected to be integrated into the National Airspace System (NAS) by 2015. Several human factors challenges need to be addressed before UAS can safely and routinely fly in the NAS with manned aircraft. Perhaps the most significant challenge is for the UAS to be non-disruptive to the air traffic management system. Another human factors challenge is how to provide UAS pilots with intuitive traffic information in order to support situation awareness (SA) of their airspace environment as well as a see-and-avoid capability comparable to manned aircraft so that a UAS pilot could safely maneuver the aircraft to maintain separation and collision avoidance if necessary. A simulation experiment was conducted to examine baseline compliance of UAS operations in the current airspace system. Researchers also examined the effects of introducing a Cockpit Situation Display (CSD) into a UAS Ground Control Station (GCS) on UAS pilot performance, workload and situation awareness while flying in a positively controlled sector. Pilots were tasked with conducting a highway patrol police mission with a Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) UAS in L.A. Center airspace with two mission objectives: 1) to reroute the UAS when issued new instructions from their commander, and 2) to communicate with Air Traffic Control (ATC) to negotiate flight plan changes and respond to vectoring and altitude change instructions. Objective aircraft separation data, workload ratings, SA data, and subjective ratings regarding UAS operations in the NAS were collected. Results indicate that UAS pilots were able to comply appropriately with ATC instructions. In addition, the introduction of the CSD improved pilot SA and reduced workload associated with UAS and ATC interactions.

Continuing demand for the use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) has put increasing pressure on operations in civil airspace. The need to fly UAS in the National Airspace System (NAS) in order to perform missions vital to national security and defense, emergency management, and science is increasing at a rapid pace. In order to ensure safe operations in the NAS, operators of unmanned aircraft, like those of manned aircraft, may be required to maintain separation assurance and avoid loss of separation with other aircraft while performing their mission tasks. This experiment investigated the effects of varying levels of automation on UAS operator performance and workload while responding to conflict resolution instructions provided by the Tactical Collision Avoidance System II (TCAS II) during a UAS mission in high-density airspace. The purpose of this study was not to investigate the safety of using TCAS II on UAS, but rather to examine the effect of automation on the ability of operators to respond to traffic collision alerts. Six licensed pilots were recruited to act as UAS operators for this study. Operators were instructed to follow a specified mission flight path, while maintaining radio contact with Air Traffic Control and responding to TCAS II resolution advisories. Operators flew four, 45 minute, experimental missions with four different levels of automation: Manual, Knobs, Management by Exception, and Fully Automated. All missions included TCAS II Resolution Advisories (RAs) that required operator attention and rerouting. Operator compliance and reaction time to RAs was measured, and post-run NASA-TLX ratings were collected to measure workload. Results showed significantly higher compliance rates, faster responses to TCAS II alerts, as well as less preemptive operator actions when higher levels of automation are implemented. Physical and Temporal ratings of workload were significantly higher in the Manual condition than in the Management by Exception and Fully Automated conditions.

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 mandates UAS integration in the NAS by 2015. Operators must be able to safely maneuver UAS to maintain separation and collision avoidance. Delegated Separation is defined as the transfer of responsibility for maintaining separation between aircraft or vehicles from the air navigation service provider to the relevant flight operator, and will likely begin in sparsely trafficked areas before moving to more heavily populated airspace. As UAS operate primarily in areas with lower traffic density and perform maneuvers routinely that are currently managed through special handling, they have the advantage of becoming an early adopter of delegated separation. This experiment will examine if UAS are capable of performing delegated separation in 5 nm horizontal and 1000 ft vertical distances under two delegation conditions. In Extended Delegation, ATC are in charge of identifying problems and delegating to pilot identification and implementation of the solution and monitoring. In Full Delegation, the pilots are responsible for all tasks related to separation assurance: identification of problems and solutions, implementation and monitoring.