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 24th 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.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment