UnmannedAircraftSystems(UAS)TrafficManagement(UTM)NationalCampaignII

ArwaAweissBrandonOwens

JosephRios,JeffreyHomola,ChristophMohlenbrink

NASAAmesResearchCenterSciTech2018

January11,2018

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20190025701 2020-01-26T20:44:00+00:00Z

PresentationOverview✈ Background✈ UTMarchitecture✈ Motivation✈ Method✈ Results✈ Summary✈ NextSteps

2

Background(WhyUTM?)

✈ Millions of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) are predicted tofly in U.S. airspace within the next decade

🚁 Conduct a variety of public safety, commercial, & hobbyist operations

🚁 Noestablishedinfrastructureexiststosafelymanagethese

✈ NASAiscollaboratingwiththeFAA&UASindustrystakeholdersto🚁 DeveloparesearchplatformforaUASTrafficManagement(UTM)system

🚁 DeterminehowanoperationalUTMsystemcanenableaccessforsUASintolow-altitudeairspaceinasafe,efficient,&fairmanner

3

Background(UTMServices)

✈ UTMwillprovideforbasicservicessuchasflightplanning,flightmonitoring,hazardousweather&windavoidance,UASidentification,&separationassuranceaswellasotherpotentialservices

✈ MostoftheseserviceswillbeprovidedbyanumberofcommercialUASServiceSuppliers(USS)ratherthanbyasinglesystem

4

Background- TechnicalCapabilityLevel(TCL)

✈ TCL1:multipleVisualLineofSight(VLOS)

✈ TCL2:multipleBeyondVisualLineofSight(BVLOS),rural

✈ TCL3:multipleBVLOS,somemannedaircraft,suburban

✈ TCL4:complexurbanBVLOS

5

✈ SupporttheentirerangeofsUAS (<=55lbs)

✈ Accountforrisksassociatedwithoperations

UTMArchitecture

6

*FIMsisacentral,cloud-basedcomponentthatactsasabridgetotheNAS&brokerofinformationbetweenstakeholders

*FIMsprovidestruthdataaboutconstraintsintheairspace,messagesrelatedtoUTMoperations,&otherrelevantdata

UTMArchitecture

7

*ConnectionstotheFIMSallowedfromUSSsthatmeetrequirementsrelatedtofunctionality,qualityofservice,&liability

*Connections&communicationsareinternet-based&builtonindustrystandards&protocols

TechnicalCapabilityLevel(TCL2)NationalCampaign

8

✈ FlighttestingfromMay15th throughJune9th,2017atsixFAAUASTestSites✈ Demonstrate,evaluate,&refinethefunctionaldesigns,technology

prototypes,&UTMConOps🚁 TestTCL2scenarios

– acrossawiderangeofoperatingenvironments– utilizingtheFIMS-USSarchitectureforUTM– withawiderangeofUASplatforms&UTMClients

🚁 AccelerateUASstakeholderdevelopmentofUTMcomponents

FlightOperationObjectives

9

✈ ConductUTMOperationstotest/determineinformationrequirementsbetweenthecomponentsoftheUTMsystem

✈ ConductUTMOperationswithanindustry-developedTCL2-compatibleUSS

✈ Test&evaluatescheduling&planningcapabilities

ResearchAreasofInterest

10

TestSite USSTechnology

GeofenceTechnology

Ground-basedSense&Avoid

(SAA)

AirborneSense&

Avoid(SAA)

CommunicationNavigationSurveillance

(CNS)

HumanFactors

Alaska X X

Nevada X X X X X X

NewYork X X X

NorthDakota X X X X X

Texas X

Virginia X X

✈ Related to technologies that enable TCL 2 UTM capabilities✈ Test & evaluate geofencing & conformance monitoring capabilities✈ Evaluate human factors requirements related to data creation & display

FlightOperationFeatures

11

TestSite AltitudeStratifiedOperations

Beyond/ExtendedVisualLineofSight(BVLOS)

AltitudeStratifiedBVLOS

Dynamic(en-route)

replanning

ResponsetoalertsfromUTMSystem

ContingencyImplementation

Alaska X X X X X

Nevada X X X X X X

NewYork X X X X X X

NorthDakota

X X X X X

Texas X X X X X X

Virginia X X X X X X

✈ DemonstrateaBeyondVisualLineofSight(BVLOS)packagedelivery✈ TestUSS&humanoperatorreactionstoANSPconstraints&directives

Vehicles,Operators,andUSS

12

TestSite VehicleType Operator USS

Alaska 1singlerotorhelicopter3quadcopter2octocopter

AlaskaCenterforUASIntegration(ACUASI)

Simulyze

Nevada 4fixedwing2quadcopters1hexacopter1octocopter

AmazonCarbonAutonomous

DroneAmerica

AirMapAmazon

NewYork 1quadcopter1hexacopter1octocopter

1fixedwinghybrid

NortheastUASAirspaceIntegrationResearchAlliance

(NUAIR)

NASA

NorthDakota 1hybriddelta-wing4fixedwing2hexacopter1simulated

Botlink,IsightRPVServices,SkySkopes,UniversityofNorthDakota,UnmannedApplicationsInstituteInternational(UAI)

Simulyze

Texas 2quadcopter2fixedwing

LoneStarUASCenter(LSUASC) NASA

Virginia 1fixedwing2quadcopter

Google(ProjectWing)Intel

VirginiaTech

Google(ProjectWing)ANRA

FlightScenarios

13

✈ Vehiclesflewprofilesthatsimulatedreal-worldusecases✈ Craftedtotestdifferentcapabilitiesinthesystem,suchasresponsestoalerts,lostlink

procedures,etc.✈ Somescenariosincludedsimultaneousinteractingmissions

DataCollection

14

✈ DataflowsbetweenUASoperators&aUSSareakeyelementoftheoverallUTMConOps

✈ 1,488flightoperationsubmissionstosixUSSsacrosssixtestsites✈ Duringoperations

🚁UASoperatorsusingtheNASAUSSsubmitteddigitalflightdatadirectlyviatheNASAUSSprototype&thoseusinganon-NASAUSSsubmittedtoaNASAdatabase

🚁DatawasgatheredfromtheGroundControlStationsbythetestsites,formatted,&senttoNASA

🚁Humanfactorsresearchersatthetestsitesobservedoperations,recordedactions,administeredquestionnaires,&conducteddebriefdiscussions

🚁HumanfactorsteamsituatedatNASAAmesobservedoperations,recordeddata,&supportedthedeployedteam

🚁UAS operators self-reported off-nominal situations

Results

15

✈ Data collection & analysis focused on producing measures ofperformance (MOP) that could ultimately characterize theoverall UTM system behavior as implemented in the overall testenvironment

✈ For TCL 2 National Campaign, these MOPs🚁 are an initial benchmark, not a full indication of UTM

characteristics; more data needed to draw generalizableconclusions

🚁 were introduced as potential metrics that can be monitored infuture operational UTM system

🚁 provide examples of potential MOPs that could be useful forinvestigations of UTM trends, USS & UAS design, policy decisions,& market research

Results

16

MOPswillprovideabasisforcomparisonwithfuturetests,including

✈ numberofsubmitted,accepted,&rejectedoperationplans

✈ numberofnonconformance&rogueoperations

✈ time&distanceflownwithUTMSystem

✈ timespentinactive,nonconforming,&roguestates

NumberofSubmittedandAcceptedOperationPlans

17

✈ number of submitted plans -> provides a partial indication of the scale of testing in termsof number of operations planned & executed

✈ number of accepted plans -> provides a partial indication of the effectiveness ofoperation planning: Over 90% were accepted

✈ Diversityofoperations&vehicletypesusedformissions

✈ Numbersdon’texpressloadingofsystem,butarebasedonthenumberofvehicles&oftherepetitionsscenariowasflown

TimeandDistanceFlowninUTMSystem✈ Provide a partial indication of the overall scale of testing conducted & the UAS

operator preferred mission time & distance for each vehicle type

✈ Could be applied to operating fleets, aircraft models, operating environments, &individual operators to characterize distribution of time & distance of their preferredUTM applications

18

TimeSpentinActivated,Nonconforming,&RogueStates

19

Provides partial indications of: 1) the ability of UTM users to effectively plan UTMoperations & 2) the vehicle’s ability to conform to those plans

Off-nominalreportsandHumanFactorsResults

20

✈ Number of Off-Nominal Operational-Situation Reports🚁 Can be used to track changes in the frequency of reportable off-nominal

events & awareness of such events🚁 15 reports were correctly submitted to NASA from test participants

✈ Human Factors results🚁 Information participants felt they needed about other operations did not

always match the information they were willing to share about their own🚁 Flight crew participants’ awareness & understanding of UTM limited

because they were often not involved in USS development or the test-plan/scenario design -> flight crew interaction with UTM

🚁 Display design & usability influenced what information operators lookedat or listened to -> understanding of operational situation

🚁 Response time to a UTM notification depended heavily on a team’sstructure, communication efficiency, & procedures

TestSite&PartnerSuggestions

21

✈ AllowmultipleUAStolaunch/operate/recoverinthesameairspace

✈ USS- to- USScommunicationsisnecessarytodeconflictflightplans

✈ ThereisaneedforaUSSDiscoveryservicethatallowsoperatorstodiscoverUSSs&USSstodiscovereachother&subscribetoeachother’soperations

TestSite&PartnerSuggestions

22

✈ Theexpectationthatapilotwouldmessageduringanemergencyprocedureisnotfeasiblebecausepilotworkloadwouldbetoohigh

✈ DisplayingneighboringUTMoperationswouldbeveryusefulinplanningphases

✈ AUTMclientshouldallowqueries&visualizationofanyassociatedoperationvolumes,constraints,orotherUTMaircraftintheeventofalertsornegativeUTMresponses

Summary

23

✈ TCL2NationalCampaignprovidedinitialvalidationofthepotentialflexibility&scalabilityoftheUTMconcept&architecture

✈ Partnersproduced1,488flightoperationsubmissionstoatotalofsixuniqueUTMUSSsacrosssixgeographicallydiversetestsites

✈ NCwasverysuccessful->NASA&partnersmadeprogressonthedevelopment&refinementoftheirsoftware,hardware,&processesforoperatingUASinaccordancewiththeUTMConOps

✈ LessonslearnedshapingflighttestsforTCL3&beyond&factoringintocontinueddiscussionsbetweenNASA&UASstakeholdersabouttechnologies&concepts

✈ MOPswereintroducedasexamplesofpotentialmetricstoroutinelymonitorinfutureoperationsUTMsystems

NextSteps

24

✈ TCL3NationalCampaignwill🚁 takeplaceFebruarythroughMay2018🚁 beatsamesixtestsites🚁 testtheTCL3UTMsystem🚁 haveflighttestsrelatedtoSAA,CNS,dataexchange,anduse

cases

✈ TCL4expectedtobeginintheendof2018

✈ sUAS LowAltitudeAuthorizationandNotificationCapability(LAANC)providestheinitialdataframeworkforsomeUTMfeatures

Backup

BACKUP

25

NonconformingandRogueOperations

26

✈ NonconformingOperation - anoperationparticipatinginUTMcanbedesignatedbytheNASAUSSasnonconformingfortheanyofthefollowingreasons:🚁 AUAtravelsoutsideofitsconformancegeography(orvolume)

– Theconformancegeographyistheactivatedsegmentofthe4Dvolumethattheoperationplanstooperatewithin

🚁 AUAsendsinsufficientpositionreports✈ RogueOperation - apermanentlynonconformingoperation.Anoperation

participatinginUTMwillbedesignatedbytheNASAUSSasrogueforanyofthefollowingreasons:🚁 AUAtravelsoutsideofitsprotectedgeography(orvolume)

– Theprotectedgeographycontainstheconformancegeographyplusabuffer

🚁 AUAremainsnonconformingfor60secondsorlonger✈ ArogueoperationistreatedbytheUSSasifithasnointentorcapabilityfor

returningtoconformancewithitsoperationplan✈ AnonconformingoperationistemporarilyallowedbytheUSStoreturnto

conformancewithitsoperationplan

HumanFactorsResultsDetails

27

✈ participants’limitedUTMunderstanding: -Formanytestsites,differentorganizationswereresponsiblefortheUSScomponent,thescenariodesign,andthevehicle’sconduct,andoftendidnotcoordinatewitheachotherleadinguptotheevent.Sincemostofourparticipantsweretheflightcrews(whocommonlyhadlittle/noknowledgeoftheUSSortestscenarios),whenweaskedthemaboutUTM(ex:howwouldyouratethetimelinessofthenotificationsprovidedtoyoubyyourUSS?),theyoftenansweredn/a,sincetheydidn’tknow/understandif/howtheywereinteractingwithUTM.

✈ displaydesign/usability:Work-in-progress-interfacesmanifestedinmanyways,rangingfromUSSsthatsubmittedflightgeographiesunrelatedtotheactualoperation,toUSSclientsthathadauralannunciationsfornotificationsofrogue-states.Consequently,theformerflightcrewshadalowerunderstandingoftheUTMsituation,whereasthelatterflightcrewshadabetterunderstandingoftheUTMsituation.

✈ informationaboutothersvs.self:Whenaskedwhatinformationtheywouldliketoknowaboutaneighboringflight,participantshadalonglistofitemsthattheythoughtwouldgivethemgoodsituationawareness.However,whenaskedinaseparatequestionwhatinformationtheywouldbehappytobroadcastabouttheirownvehicle,thelistwasmuchmorelimitedandsomeparticipantsdiscussedsecurityconcernsinsharinganyinformation.Sharingtheirowncontactinformation(inbothnominalandoff-nominalsituations),andsharingpositionreportsandbatteryhealthundernominalsituationsdidnotgarnerunanimoussupport,eventhoughtheparticipantsacknowledgedthatsuchinformationfromaneighboringaircraftwouldbehelpful.

✈ responsetime:TeamseitherhadadedicatedUTMoperatorco-locatedwiththeflightcrew,orhadaremoteUTMoperatorwhowasservingmultipleflightcrewssimultaneously.Botharrangementshaveadvantagesanddisadvantages,butintermsofresponsetime,theadvantagegoestoteamwiththein-crewUTMoperator.ThatUTMoperatoriswiththerestoftheflightcrew,sowhenaUTMeventhappens,theyareabletoeasilydescribeto(orshow)theflightcrewwhat’sgoingonandcandirectlytaketheteam’sinputforanyneededresponse/decision.WhentheUTMoperatorisseparatefromtheflightcrew,theyhavetodescribethesituationovertheradio,thentheflightcrewhastodescribetheirdecisionbacktotheUTMoperator,whocantheninputit.Thisaddedalayerofcommunicationineachdirectionthatsloweddownresponsetime.

MediaCoverage

28

✈ MediaeventswerehostedatNASAAmes&theFAAdesignatedUASTestSites

✈ Over25distinctaccountsoftheUTMTCL2NationalCampaignappearedonregionalnewsbroadcasts,business&technologynewswebsites,Facebook,&YouTube

🚁 FacebookLiveEvent(producedbyNASAPAO):https://www.facebook.com/nasaames/videos/10154368128626394/?fref=mentions

🚁 NASAproducedYouTubevideo:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdUKwZNM42g

✈ Alive,streamedQ&AsessionwasconductedbetweenNASAARCAirspaceOperationsLaboratory(AOL)&theAIAAAviationConferenceinDenver,CO

TCL2NationalCampaignArchitecture

29

Datasets

30

✈ The Full DatasetThe Full Dataset includes all 1762 operation plans submitted to the USSs connected to the FIMs overthe timeframe of the TCL 2 National Campaign plus six non-cooperative or intruder flights (i.e., flightsintentionally flown without UTM submitted operations plans) included in the data the test sitesprovided to NASA per the data management plan.

✈ The User-Filtered DatasetThe User-Filtered Dataset excludes operation plans submitted from USS users that were not directlyinvolved in flight test activities. The total number of operations plans in this data subset is 1488.

✈ The Manually Processed DatasetThe Manually Processed Dataset excludes operation plans that submitted invalid aircraft data,operations plans that did not submit position reports, & operations that submitted position reports atlocations other than the test sites in addition to the operation plans excluded from the User FilteredDataset. Operations excluded from the Manually Processed Dataset set due to a lack of positionreports include operations that were rejected & aborted before activation as well as operations wherean aircraft flew but failed to submit a position report due to navigation or communication issues.Each operation from this subset was manually validated & categorized (by data quality & operationtype) by examining submission inputs from the USS user, visualizations of the position data,information in the final test reports submitted to NASA by the test sites, & notes from the humanfactors researchers deployed to the test sites. The total number of operation plans in this data subsetis 611.

Datasets

31

✈ The Data Management Plan (DMP) DatasetThis dataset includes operations with detailed operation data that the test sites pre-processed & submitted to NASAin the form of data files that met the DMP specification. The DMP Dataset includes 135 operations (including the sixintruder flights) & was run through automated validation checks & ingested into a common database with the datasubmitted directly to the FIMS & Dapper.

✈ The Filtered DMP DatasetThe Filtered DMP Dataset includes the intersection of operations from the Manually Processed Dataset & the DMPDataset. The total number of operations in this data subset is 133 including the six intruder flights. Because the testsites provided detailed data for these operations & they were manually processed, the operations in this data subsetare currently considered to be the best suited for further study. Of these 133 operations, 127 were classified asactual aircraft flights with acceptable data quality.

Moredetails

32

✈ TestobjectspertinenttotheNASA-FAARTTWorkingGroups(Sense&Avoid,Dataexchange,conceptusecases,&Communication,Navigation,Surveillance)

✈ Lowerlevelmeasuresthatpotentiallyspeaktokeyaspectsofspecifictechnologiesandprocesses- ExamplesforSenseandAvoidRTTgrouptotesteffectivenessofthefollowing:

🚁 Airspaceconstraints

🚁 Groundsurveillance

🚁 Non-cooperativedeconfliction

🚁 Pilotreport

🚁 Conflictalert

🚁 Timedurationbetweenconflictalertandaircraftexitingprotectedgeography

🚁 Schedulingandplanning

– Numberofrogueoperationsduetoflyingbeyondoperationstoptime

🚁 Flightplanning

– Numberoflateralflightgeographyviolationspergeofencingmechanismandvehicletype

🚁 Conformancemonitoring

– Numberoflateralflightgeographyviolationsperflight

Moredetails

33

✈ Partialindicationforexample,becauseacceptedOperationsdoesn’treallyindicateeffectivenessoftheirflightplanning,toproperlyguageeffectivenessyouwouldalsoneedtohavemeasuresthatdemonstrateabalanceofairspaceefficiency,safety,andmissionsuccess.Soforinstanceiftheywereableconductasuccessfulmission(withoutanyoff-nominaldeviations),theywereabletostayintheiroperationalvolumes,andtheyplannedmissionswithoutconflicts(withrespecttoaspecificairspacedensity),thentheywereeffectiveatplanningtheiroperation.

Background(TechnicalCapabilityLevels)

✈ TechnicalCapabilityLevel(TCL2)isthesecondoffourincreasinglycomplexTCLs🚁 SupporttheentirerangeofsUAS(<=55lbs)🚁 Accountforrisksassociatedwithoperations

✈ TCL2supportsoperationsthatare🚁 Lowdensity&beyond-visual-lineofsight(BVLOS)🚁 Oversparselypopulatedareas&wheretherearefewmanned

aircraftwithcloseproximitytotheareaofoperation

34

FAAdesignatedUASTestSites

35

✈ NevadaInstituteforAutonomousSystems(NIAS)

✈ GriffissInternationalAirport

✈ VirginiaTechMid-AtlanticAviationPartnership(MAAP)

✈ UniversityofAlaskaFairbanks

✈ LoneStarUASCenter(LSUASC)

✈ NorthernPlainsUnmannedAircraftSystemsTestSite(NPUASTS)

Results

36

✈ Data collection & analysis focused on producing measures ofperformance (MOP) that characterize the overall UTM systembehavior as implemented in the overall test environment

✈ For TCL 2 National Campaign, these MOPs🚁 are an initial benchmark, not a full indication of UTM characteristics;

more data needed to draw generalizable conclusions🚁 were introduced as potential metrics that can be monitored in future

operational UTM system🚁 and other potential MOPs (SAA & CNS) when more data is collected will

be useful for investigations of UTM trends, USS & UAS design, policydecisions, and market research

✈ MOPswillprovidebasesforcomparisonwithfuturetests,including🚁 numberofsubmitted,accepted,&rejectedoperationplans

🚁 numberofnonconformance&rogueoperations

🚁 time&distanceflownwithUTMSystem

🚁 timespentinactive,nonconforming,&roguestates

Background- TechnicalCapabilityLevel(TCL)✈ TCL1:multiple

VLOS

🚁 Infosharing

✈ TCL2:multipleBVLOS,rural🚁 Intentsharing

✈ TCL3:multipleBVLOS,nearairports,suburban🚁 AirborneDAA,

V2V

✈ TCL4:complexurbanBVLOS🚁 BVLOSto

doorstep🚁 Track&locate

37

TCL1: multiple VLOSAPI-based networked opsInfo sharingTCL2: multiple BVLOS, ruralInitial BVLOSIntent sharingGeo-fenced opsTCL3: multiple BVLOS, near airports, suburbanRoutine BVLOSAirborne DAA, V2VAvoid static obstaclesTCL4: complex urban BVLOSBVLOS to doorstepTrack and locateAvoid dynamic obstaclesLarge scale contingencies

38

Background- TechnicalCapabilityLevel(TCL)