Unmanned Aerial Systems Integration into the National Airspace System

Unmanned Aerial Systems Integration into the National Airspace System

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has developed a program called “NextGen”, where the primary objectives of this program are to enhance safety and improve efficiency in our nation's airspace (Federal Aviation Administration, 2017). NextGen intends to add updated technologies to existing airport control structures, through improved air traffic control, performance-based navigation (PBN), and improving multiple runway operations. The estimate for the next 15 years is forecasted to “produce an additional $11.4 billion in benefits from [NextGen] improvements” (Federal Aviation Administration, 2017).

Improving aviation operations within the NAS

            The FAA seeks to improve aviation operations within the national airspace system through several different approaches, and initially evaluating and/or measuring the performance of specific airports is the first step in integrating NextGen capabilities. Understanding where and to what level system improvements can be made will allow for the NextGen budget to allocate appropriate time and energy to airports and areas of the country that see the most congestion, traffic, and are risk areas for potential flight delays or mishaps (Federal Aviation Administration, 2017). The FAA evaluates 30 core airports within the continental United States, where each airport “performance is crucial to air traffic controllers, airports, and airlines as they plan schedules and anticipate traffic levels” (Federal Aviation Administration, 2017). Factors that influence performance measures include (but not limited to): runway and weather conditions, types of aircraft departing and arriving, and volume of traffic (Federal Aviation Administration, 2017).

            Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD). As the 24^th busiest airport in the United States as of FY 2016 in terms of passenger traffic, Washington Dulles currently has 8 different systems in place for NextGen improvements. While the intent is to improve overall safety and performance for the airport, there are a few technological enhancements that can be beneficial to unmanned aerial systems (UAS) integration.

                        NextGen portfolio additions and relation to UAS. New capabilities for airports such as: separation management, collaborative air traffic management (CATM), on-demand NAS information, improved approaches and low visibility operations, performance based navigation (PBN), and improved multiple runway operations are some additions that can have profound impacts for UAS operating within the NAS. Overall, these programs are intended to provide satellite-fed information directly to aircraft operators and controllers to optimize situational awareness during normal and emergency operations. Optimizing departure and arrival intervals by understanding aircraft type, model and series requirements for spacing and other aerodynamic safety factors (i.e. wing vortices after takeoff) can be conducive to a safer and more efficient airport. In terms of UAS specifically, this can greatly aid in an operator’s ability to determine peak times where airports are congested with civilian traffic, and coordinate more effectively with air traffic controllers for deconfliction – both in the airspace and on the ground (Durso et al., 2010).

Sharing Situational Awareness with UAS

            In regards to collaborative efforts and CATM, if the information is not shared, then it can negatively impact the decision making abilities of UAS operators, manned aircraft pilots, and air traffic controllers. There are many human factors needs when evaluating shared situational awareness, enhanced flight plan negotiations and trajectory and flow managements (Durso et al., 2010). Strategically managing the demand of the NAS as to not exceed the available capacity can be extremely difficult and taxing to the operators looking to manage the traffic. There are two issues that need to be addressed prior to integrating UAS into the picture for these NextGen capabilities. The need for: (1) valid computational models simulating imperfect UAS automation and human interaction, and (2) situation displays and human redundancy to aid in potential over-dependence of automation decision aids (Durso et al., 2010). Keeping the human decision making ability and presence during concept validation and testing is an integral part of ensuring NextGen success for UAS integration (Durso et al., 2010). Human systems interface technology for monitoring and controlling UAS is currently being developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the multi-aircraft control station (MACS) allows for SAA processing and simulation (Fern, Rorie & Shively, 2014). This type of system can greatly increase situational awareness and communication between controlling agencies looking to monitor both UAS and manned aircraft in the NAS. Over reliance of UAS abilities can lead to potential operator complacency, and may present additional human factors concerns when discussing sense and avoid (SAA) and lost link scenarios.

UAS Integration Concerns and Human Factors.

            The importance of detect, sense and avoid principles that are being tested by many large UAS and accommodating for these actions for vehicles operating in the NAS is crucial. As part of the NextGen initiative for CATM and subsequent UAS integration, one of the biggest obstacles for unmanned vehicles is the lack of proven SAA capability to comply with Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 14, Part 91.113 (Melnyk, Schrage, Jimenez, & Volovoi, 2014). One of the central risk mitigations to address SAA for UAS working within designated airspace is separation and avoidance. If avoidance is coupled with a collaborative air traffic control, then it may be possible for UAS to work safely among other aircraft so long as there is effective communication between controlling agencies through shared situational awareness (Melnyk, Schrage, Jimenez, & Volovoi, 2014). From a conservative approach for small UAS (sUAS), SAA requirements could be attained by “requiring that unmanned operators keep their aircraft within direct visual observation, coordinate with air traffic control, and fly only below a specified altitude during daytime and in clear weather (Warren, 2014).

Lost Communications or Lost Link. Additions such as PBN and on-demand NAS information are directly dependent on satellite feed to continuously update the air traffic within the NAS. Concerns for lost link within the NAS for an unmanned system are certainly high, however there have been significant strides to determine an RF band that minimizes interference and allows for contact redundancy. In 2014, NASA began work on a proposed concept for a civil UAS communication architecture which is centralized around a control and non-payload communication (CNPC) center operating in L and C bands (Griner, 2014). In 2012, two frequency bands were dedicated to UAS control and non-payload communication, where work is being done to establish specific bands for UAS between 960-977 MHz, and 5030-5091 MHz (Griner, 2014).

In conclusion, ensuring communications are established between a UAS and some control entity at all times is surely a hefty requirement for UAS integration into the NAS, but keeping a human-in-the-loop with updated position data will increase situational awareness and potentially time-critical decision making to avoid a midair or ground mishap. Human factors such as complacency for UAS SAA capability or UAS control, coupled with situational awareness due to unclear/confusing displays or communication can lead to poor UAS integration into the NAS. Addressing these issues through redundant systems, quality training, and high levels of testing and computer modeling can aid in UAS integration into the changing airspace and airport structures due to NextGen capabilities. 

References

Durso, F. T., Gawron, V. J., Krois, P., Sarter, N., Smith, P. J., Wickens, C. & Yuditsky, T. (2010). A Portfolio of Human Factors for NextGen. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 54(1), 1-5. doi: 10.1177/154193121005400102

Fern, L., Rorie R. & Shively, J. (2014, October 17). NASA’s UAS Integration into the NAS. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 58(1), 49-53. doi: 10.1177/1541931214581011

Griner, J. (2014, April 8). Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) integration in the National Airspace System (NAS) project: UAS Control and Non-Payload Communication (CNPC) System Development and Testing. 2014 Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS) Conference Proceedings, Herndon, VA, 2014, 1-24. doi: 10.1109/ICNSurv.2014.6820072

Federal Aviation Administration. (2017, January 23). Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) Assessment. Retrieved from FAA.GOV Next Generation, https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/snapshots/airport/?locationId=32

Melnyk, R., Schrage, D., Jimenez, H., & Volovoi, V. (2014). Sense and Avoid Requirements for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Using a Target Level of Safety Approach. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 34(10), 1894-1906. doi:10.1111/risa.12200

Warren, M. (2014). UAS integration: A Call to Action. The Air and Space Lawyer, 27(2), 1-26. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1779224569?accountid=27203

---

An Overview of the Function and Human Factors Associated with the NASA Payload Operations and Integration Center (POIC)

An Overview of the Function and Human Factors Associated with the NASA Payload Operations and Integration Center (POIC)

The NASA Payload Operations and Integration Center (POIC) based in Huntsville, Alabama supports the International Space Station (ISS) currently on-orbit, and is considered to be the primary space station science command post (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2017). The main purpose of this ground control element is to plan science missions, ensure the safe execution of these missions, and task research areas including microgravity, impacts of space to human physiology, physical science and materials science (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2014). In essence, this ground installation acts as the central hub that plans, monitors, and executes space science missions aboard the ISS, and coordinates among commercial and international partners across the globe. 

The research mission is continuously monitored through different shifts, which are typically allocated to a specific “cadre” of personnel who meet very high training and operational demands. The team of specialists is led by the Payload Operations Director (POD), and is the designated point of authority for coordination and contact with NASA mission control located in Houston, Texas (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2014). Among the other support personnel, there are 7 other critical positions that enable the ground crew to keep the POIC running and provide continuous support to the ISS. The Operations Controller (OC) oversees the resources and scheduled research activities, while reporting anomalies of interest to the POD. Other crew positions at the POIC include the: Timeline Change Officer (TCO), Payload Rack Officer (PRO), Payload Communications Officer (PCO), Lead Increment Science Representative (LIS REP), Stowage, and Data Manager Coordinator (DMC) (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2014). Personnel who occupy these positions, as well as other flight controllers present at the POIC, have access to the extensive mock-ups, resources, and test facilities at the on-site laboratory training complex. Use of this area enables flight crew members to effectively understand, facilitate, and design new experimental test setups (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2014). 

A critical point of discussion in terms of human factors would certainly be crew workload, and use of effective crew resource managements (CRM) principles. As mentioned previously, the station is manned 24-hours a day, 365 days a year, and utilizes a strict three-shift manning structure (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2014). As the demand for private, commercial and government research grows to test new equipment, components, and materials prior to spacecraft integration, it can generate some perceived pressure for the flight controller personnel stationed at the POIC due to the heavy workloads. Over the last 15 years, over 1600 space research projects have been completed (source). With the addition of an additional control room to support the Fast, Affordable, Science and Technology Satellite (FASTSAT) even more time will be dedicated to space science missions/tasks aboard the ISS, and can place extra stress on the flight controllers (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2014). It may not necessarily be the time pressure but the perception that there is a time pressure constraint present can impair operator performance (Case Western Reserve University, 2009). If the station does not effectively address manning concerns to ensure that there are a sufficient amount of qualified flight controllers present for each shift, then the quality of work and research preparedness may suffer. 

To address the use of CRM, it is crucial for not only the POD, PRO, DMC, and PCO to use principles such as communication efficiently, but for all flight controllers. A communications breakdown between the space station and ground station can lead to a situation where either incorrect electronic telemetry commands are sent or test experiment safety regulations are compromised due to a lack of clarity. In addition to the rigorous technical training evolutions required for flight controllers, emphasis should also be placed on CRM refresher training. Working on skills such as situational awareness, communication, and decision making may allow crew members to plan and execute routine and complex space missions more confidently (Serafini, 2016). NASA has a dedicated CRM program which is managed by the Agency's Federal Preservation Officer (FPO), and development is overseen by the Cultural Resource Management Panel (CRMP) (Serafini, 2016). Dedicated refresher training periods using readily available organization resources may aid in preventing mishaps or flight errors in the future. 

References:

Case Western Reserve University. (2009, February 16). Perception of Time Pressure Impairs Performance. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090210162035.html

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2017). Space Station Ground Facilities. Retrieved from https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/behindscenes/index.html

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2014, March 11). International Space Station: Payload Operations Center. Retrieved from https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/POC_factsheet.pdf

Serafini, S. (2016, November 7). National Aeronautics and Space Administration: CRM Overview. Retrieved from https://www.nasa.gov/content/crm-overview