Cohesive ARMD Full UAS Integration Strategy - NASA · Cohesive ARMD Full UAS Integration Strategy...

1For NASA Internal Use Only

Cohesive ARMD Full UAS Integration Strategy

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170002614 2018-07-07T04:04:45+00:00Z

NASA ARMD FY 2018 Program and Resource Guidance

• Thrust 6 - Assured Autonomy for Aviation Transformation

1) AOSP and IASP will develop a cohesive framework and strategy for achieving full integration of UAS into the NAS. (Initial: April 22, 2016. Final: SPMR19 January 2017)

KDP A Decision Memo – 13 September 2016

• Offer current thoughts on what portion of the UAS industry we expect to benefit from our work in the next 5 years… Is there a real demand in that timeframe?

• Include vehicle centric technology look as part of Full UAS Integration strategy. Due at SPMR.– Describe any technologies with clear applicability to full integration that were

excluded from the UAS-NAS P2 effort due to programmatic constraints.

• Provide an assessment on whether, in the next 5 to 10 years, there could be disruptive technology that impacts C2 or DAA… Can we envision something that will change the game? Due at SPMR.

2

Actions due at SPMR

• Introduction / Background

• Current Landscape and Future Vision

• UAS Demand and Key Challenges

• UAS Airspace Access Pillars and Enablers

• Overarching UAS Community Strategy

• Long Term Vision Considerations

• Recommendations and Next Steps

Discussion Topics

3

Introduction

4

Purpose: Develop a cohesive ARMD Full UAS integration Strategy across NASA Aeronautics Programs

Scope: Focus on what is needed to enable full integration of UAS for civil / commercial operations within the NAS by ~2025.– Top level strategy that assesses stakeholder needs, FAA UAS Integration

Strategy, Concept of Operations, Implementation Plans, etc.– Leverage information from Government-wide R&D Analysis (ExCom )and FAA

R&D Roadmap

Outcome: A Vision, Strategic Plan and Communication Strategy for:‒ Routine UAS access within the NAS ‒ Concept for transitioning UAS access

advancements towards the integration of highly autonomous systems and on-demand mobility

Enabling Full Integration of UAS for civil / commercial operations within the NAS by ~2025

Background

• UAS Airspace Access Community Needs Assessment

– NASA completed an internal assessment and gap analysis in 2015

– NASA stood up an Independent Team in the fall of 2016 to evaluate NASA’s internal assessment and to conduct an independent needs/gaps assessment by engaging multiple stakeholders across the UAS community

• NASA is committed to working closely with the FAA, OGA and the stakeholder community to insure that NASA investments address critical integration challenges while providing significant benefits to the US Taxpayer

• The action was given as part of Thrust 6 - Assured Autonomy for Aviation Transformation:

– AOSP and IASP will develop a cohesive framework and strategy for achieving full integration of UAS into the NAS. (Initial: April 22, 2016. Final: SPMR19 January 2017)

5








Discussion Topics

6

Current Landscape

• FAA has stepped up their regulatory leadership role

– FAA has streamlined the COA process, awarded over 5,000 Section 333 exemption, and released the small UAS rule (Part 107)

– FAA Roadmap in progress with consideration to all airspace classes and vehicle types

• NASA has a leadership role for research and technology development

– UAS-NAS has made significant progress towards enabling flight to/from Class A Airspace

– UTM has made significant progress towards access to low altitude airspace

• Industry commercialization efforts have increased significantly

– Innovative business models and associated certification efforts for large aircraft are rapidly expanding

– Innovations for package delivery, agriculture, and other uses for public good are emerging throughout industry

7

Civil Manned Airspace Environment

RURAL URBAN

FL-600

18K’ MSL

10K’ MSL

AL

TIT

UD

E

TOP OF CLASS G

Airport

Terminal

Airspace

Cooperative

Traffic

Non-cooperative

Traffic

Non-cooperative

Traffic

Cooperative

Traffic

Agricultural

Aircraft

Helicopters

Cooperative

Traffic

8

Non-cooperative

Traffic

Current Civil UAS Airspace Environment

RURAL URBAN

VLOSVLOS

VLOS Operations in accordance with 14CFR Part 107 restrictions. Note:

Some limited EVLOS/BVLOS Civil Ops in very remote areas

14 CFAR Part 107

FL-600

18K’ MSL

10K’ MSL

AL

TIT

UD

E

TOP OF CLASS G

Airport

Terminal

Airspace

Cooperative

Traffic

Non-cooperative

Traffic

Non-cooperative

Traffic

Cooperative

Traffic

Agricultural

Aircraft

Helicopters

Cooperative

Traffic

9

Non-cooperative

Traffic

Full UAS Integration Vision of the Future

Manned and unmanned aircraft will be able to routinely operate through all phases of flight in the NAS, based on airspace

requirements and system performance capabilities.

10

Future Civil UAS Airspace Environment

FL-600

18K’ MSL

10K’ MSL

Airport

Terminal

Airspace

AL

TIT

UD

E

Cooperative

Traffic

Non-cooperative

Traffic

These UAS will operate at altitudes below critical NAS infrastructure and will need to

routinely integrate with both cooperative and non-cooperative aircraft. (Example Use Case:

Infrastructure Surveillance)

VFR-LIKE

Non-cooperative

Traffic

Cooperative

Traffic

Must interface with dense controlled air traffic environments as well as operate safely in uncontrolled airspace. (Example Use Case:

Traffic Monitoring / Package Delivery)

LOW ALTITUDE URBAN

UAS will be expected to meet certification standards and operate safely with traditional air

traffic and ATM services. (Example Use Case: Communication Relay / Cargo Transport)

IFR-LIKE

Non-cooperative

Traffic

Agricultural

Aircraft

TOP OF CLASS G

TIME (Notional)Restricted Access Routine Access

Helicopters

Low risk BVLOS rural operations with or without aviation services. (Example Use Case: Agriculture)

LOW ALTITUDE RURAL

Cooperative

Traffic

RURAL URBAN

VLOSVLOS

11








Discussion Topics

12

13

UAS Demand Low Altitude Rural Operations

Wildlife SurveillanceAerial Photography

Precision Agriculture

Demand Drivers:• There is a significant demand for visual line of

sight flights to conduct precision agriculture, photography, and surveillance missions. This has been evident through the FAA’s incremental approval process from COAs to Section 333 to 14CFR Part 107.

• The demand for these missions to expand the approval envelope to include operations beyond visual line of sight has been increasing.

Representative Markets / Companies:• Precision Agriculture (PrecisionHawk, Elbit)• Wildlife Surveillance (NWF, Fish & Game)• Aerial Photography (GoPro, Roofing, Real

Estate)• Remote Surveillance (Pipelines, Railroads,

Power lines, Mining)• Vertical Infrastructure (Oil /Gas refineries,

Bridges)

14

Operating Environment AttributesLow Altitude Rural Operations

14

• Eliminating the challenges to access for the Low Altitude Rural OE will offer many commercial opportunities for small and micro UAS; particularly those wanting to operate beyond visual line of sight

• Enables the advantages of sUAS to be leveraged by a multitude of commercial businesses• Ensures safe manned / unmanned operations at very low altitudes not currently managed by the FAA• Adoption of sUAS technologies has a large potential to drastically improve the safety and efficiency of several

activities currently performed by humans

Current State:

Resulting Benefits:

• The Low Altitude Rural OE is uncontrolled self-managed airspace that is not actively managed by the FAA and located above remote or rural areas.

• Operations over unpopulated regions greatly alleviates several safety concerns; making access to the airspace easier.

• To enable this class of missions there is a need to develop the risk-based safety case for allowing access under a defined set of constraints.

• Industry, the FAA, and NASA can accelerate the safe integration for this OE by working together on defining the risk-based approach, and laying out the path to operationalizing specific missions.

Key Challenges / Barriers:• Many of the vehicle technologies, i.e. obstacle

avoidance, are at low TRL levels, and some technologies, i.e. the use of non-aviation protected spectrum, need additional research and policy.

• Development of safety-case data for BVLOS would benefit the business model for this demand case.

15

UAS DemandIFR-Like Operations

Broad Area Surveillance

Cargo & Passenger Transport

Communications Relay

18K’

MSL

10K’

MSL

60K’

MSL

Demand Drivers:• Beyond DoD, many organizations (e.g. DOI,

NOAA, NASA, FedEx, DHL) have expressed an interest in using IFR-Like operations for surveillance, science, and cargo delivery missions.

• Industry is also very interested in using HALE UAS as a more reliable option to satellite communications for remote parts of the globe.

Representative Markets / Companies:• Communications Relay (Facebook, Google,

AeroVironment)• Cargo & Passenger Transport (FedEx, DHL,

Medical Supply, Thin Haul)• Broad Area Surveillance (DOI, DHS)• Weather Monitoring (NOAA, NASA)• Emergency Response & Assessment (Land

Management, FEMA, Insurance)

16

Operating Environment AttributesIFR-Like Operations

16

• Eliminating the challenges to access for the IFR-Like OE will offer many new commercial opportunities for larger UAS as well as providing inroads for the VFR-Like OE

• Enables long-haul and long-endurance type missions• Ensures safe operations to/from and within Class A airspace• Enables manned / unmanned operations at UAS-accommodating controlled airports

Current State:

Resulting Benefits:

• Over time, a great deal of emphasis has been placed on the integration of High-Altitude, Long-Endurance (HALE) UAS into the NAS.

• DoD has used HALE UAS for many missions over the past several decades. More recently, commercial entities have begun to develop business cases for using HALE UAS.

• The unmanned vehicles in this OE are generally larger, but any vehicle that meets airspace equipage requirements could conduct missions

• RTCA SC-228 has been leading the development of UAS Standards for operations within the IFR-Like Operating Environment.

Key Challenges / Barriers:• Long-lead time vehicle certification is required.

Standardization to achieve certification is challenging with a high risk of failure due to technical, policy, and safety challenges.

• ATM infrastructure requires some changes, as well as broad updates to training, policies, and procedures.

17

UAS DemandLow Altitude Urban Operations

Local Package Delivery

Traffic Monitoring

Search and Rescue

Demand Drivers:• The most prominent example of UAS demand has

been in the package delivery trade space. Amazon, Google, Walmart, and others have plans to use the low altitude volume of airspace for on-demand, door-to-door delivery of goods.

• Several public service applications exist such as news gathering, traffic monitoring and photogrammetry.

Representative Markets / Companies:• Local Package Delivery (Amazon, Walmart)• Traffic Monitoring (Local News Stations, Waze)• Search and Rescue (Law Enforcement, First

Responders)• Infrastructure Surveillance & Protection

(Airports, Stadiums, Prisons, DHS CBP)• Construction Site Monitoring (Land developers,

Tax Assessment)

18

Operating Environment AttributesLow Altitude Urban Operations

18

• Eliminating the challenges to access for the Low Altitude Urban OE will likely offer more commercial opportunities than other Operating Environments, and will focus on small and micro UAS

• Adoption of a low altitude traffic management system has the potential to utilize airspace not currently being used by any class of aircraft, and provide scalability to future demand scenarios

• Ensures safe manned / unmanned operations at very low altitudes not currently managed by the FAA• Enables the advantages offered by sUAS to be leveraged by a multitude of commercial businesses

Current State:

Resulting Benefits:

• The Low Altitude Urban OE is largely uncontrolled airspace (excluding low altitudes around airports) that is not actively managed by the FAA.

• Operations above people and within urban environments introduce several safety concerns that will require the development of vehicle technologies to ensure safe flight in urban environments.

• Public trust and acceptance is a critical challenge regarding safety, security, privacy, noise and other environmental considerations.

Key Challenges / Barriers:• Robust vehicle technology development such as

hazard avoidance is required for a wide range of unique challenges and the first/last 50 feet of flight.

• UTM is the accepted solution for enabling low altitude operations, but its final operating model, interoperability with the ATM system, and public trust/acceptance challenges still need to be addressed.

19

UAS DemandVFR-Like Operations

Regional Cargo Delivery

Passenger Transport

Horizontal Infrastructure

Demand Drivers:• Demand for VFR-Like UAS will largely depend on

their ability to establish a business case that is competitive with many existing manned aircraft operations.

• Beyond Visual Line of Site (BVLOS) operations for horizontal infrastructure inspection, regional package delivery and transportation of people are current markets for this class of vehicle.

Representative Markets / Companies:• Horizontal Infrastructure (Railways, Exxon

Mobil, Duke Energy)• Regional Cargo Delivery (Amazon, Walmart)• Personal Transportation (Uber, AIRBUS, Ehang)• Humanitarian Studies (Red Cross, Health Dept.)• Wildfire Monitoring (Fire Rescue, State/Local

Authorities)

20

Operating Environment AttributesVFR-Like Operations

20

• Eliminating the challenges to access for the VFR-Like OE will offer many commercial opportunities for small, medium and large UAS

• Enables BVLOS missions such as regional cargo delivery and horizontal infrastructure surveillance• Ensures safe manned / unmanned operations within Class B, C, D, E and G airspace• Enables operations at smaller UAS-accommodating controlled and uncontrolled airports

Current State:

Resulting Benefits:

• The VFR-Like OE has received the least attention to date. Most focus has been towards IFR-Like and Low Altitude Urban OEs.

• The airspace that VFR-Like UAS will operate within contains both cooperative and non-cooperative aircraft operating without either a transponder, or participating in the air traffic management system.

• The unmanned vehicles in this OE are generally larger than 55 pounds, but do not have the size, weight, and power performance to support ABSAA equipment capable of meeting the requirements of RTCA SC-228 Phase 1 MOPS.

Key Challenges / Barriers:• Robust vehicle technology development, and

miniaturization, is required for a wide range of vehicle sizes to ensure safe integration into all airspace classes.

• Interoperability of this vehicle class will require the development of mature operational concepts and revolutionary ATM/UTM concepts.








Discussion Topics

21

22

UAS Airspace Access Pillars

The UAS Airspace Access Pillars enable achievement of the Vision

Public Acceptance

& Trust(A)

ATM Services &

Infrastructure (I)

UAS Technologies

(T)

Operational Regulations,

Policies & Guidelines

(P)

UAS Airspace

Access VisionManned and unmanned aircraft will be able to routinely

operate through all phases of flight in the NAS, based on airspace

requirements and system performance capabilities.

23

UAS Airspace Access Enablers

UAS Technologies:T01 - Airport Operations Technologies

T02 - Airworthiness Standards

T03 – Command, Control, Communications (C3)

T04 - Detect & Avoid (DAA)

T05 - Flight & Health Mngmt Systems

T06 - GCS Technologies

T07 - Hazard Avoidance

T08 - Highly Automated Architectures

T09 – Navigation

T10 - Power & Propulsion

T11 - Weather

Public Acceptance & Trust:A01 - Cybersecurity Criteria & Methods of Compliance

A02 - Legal & Privacy Rules / Guidelines

A03 – Noise Reductions

A04 - Physical Security Criteria & Methods of Compliance

A05 - Public Safety Confidence

Operational Regulations, Policies & Guidelines:P01 - ATM Regulations / Policies / Procedures

P02 - Airworthiness Regulations / Policies / Guidelines

P03 - Operating Rules / Regulations / Procedures

P04 - Safety Risk Mngmt & Methods of Compliance

ATM Services & Infrastructure:I01 - Airport Infrastructure

I02 - ATM Infrastructure

I03 - Non-FAA Managed Airspace Infrastructure

I04 - RF Spectrum Availability

I05 - Test Ranges & M&S Facilities








Discussion Topics

24

• The future civil UAS airspace environment is a complex picture with many unique considerations across the various operating environments– Operating environment attributes and community needs must be considered

in order to provide routine access for a diverse set of UAS demand scenarios

• UAS airspace access pillars are a simple decomposition method to structure the broad needs of this diverse community – UAS Airspace Access Enablers provide another layer of detail to consider

research elements necessary to achieve the routine access vision

• Assessing the intersections of the future civil UAS airspace environments and UAS airspace access pillars was the method chosen to develop the overarching UAS Community Strategy

– Operating Environment Roadmaps were developed around these intersections and the community needs necessary to enable routine UAS access

25

Overarching UAS Community Strategy

• Each recommended Roadmap Element requires participation from the FAA, NASA, and Industry in order to achieve the optimum integration timelines

• NASAs role within a roadmap element are not intended to be specific to a Project or Technical Challenge, however:– Roadmap elements that appear as beginning in FY17 have current NASA work

that directly relates back to the specific needs of that element

– Roadmap elements that begin in FY19 have no funding applied to them by NASA, but may have some relevant work in the industry.

– Roadmap elements that begin after FY19 have predecessor elements that must be complete before starting

• All dates are notional and can be moved left to accelerate or right to alleviate resource constraints

26

Operating Environment Roadmaps

“Roadmap Elements” are the foundational pieces necessary to be accomplished to achieve routine access for an operating environment

27

Low Altitude Rural Path Forward

OE: Low Altitude Rural FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25

Lo

w A

ltit

ud

e R

ura

l

UAS Technologies

ATM Services & Infrastructure

Operational Policies, Regulations &

Guidelines

Public Acceptance & Trust

Partner Recommended Responsibility

Industry Industry needs to develop necessary technologies for robust geofencing, secure communications, hazard avoidance, and etc.

FAA The FAA needs to define the methodology for risk-based safety standards which allow for trade-offs between population density and necessary vehicle performance.

NASA NASA needs to develop integrated test results which demonstrates that the industry-developed technologies are sufficient to satisfy the risk-based safety standards.

Low Altitude ATM

UAS Vehicle Technologies

UAS Safety and Risk

Vehicle Noise Reduction

FAA Implementation Plan

28

Low Altitude Rural Elements

RoadmapElement

Description:

UAS VehicleTechnologies

Barrier: • Vehicles (primarily sUAS) are not built in manners that will provide sufficient airworthiness for BVLOS

operations. • Critical vehicle technologies such as geofencing, DAA, Hazard Avoidance, and C2 are being developed

by industry, but lack necessary leadership to truly enable the industry. • Policy associated with enabling standardized vehicle technologies is in work

NASA Role: • The UTM project is partnered with industry to find ways to enable safe flight BVLOS• NASA centers have small scale work on several vehicle technologies• Autonomous Systems Project Vehicle technologies may apply to this OE

Recommendation: NASA’s work on vehicle technology for this OE is sufficient, but center portfolio elements should be structured under current projects.

Low Altitude ATM

Barrier: • Basic services such as weather, flight de-confliction, and others need to be developed to safely enable

the OE

NASA Role: • NASA conducts technology development for UTM TCL 1 and 2, in collaboration with industry, to deliver

research findings to the FAA and others.• UTM TCL 3 and 4 will continue to further enable all aspects

Recommendation: NASA’s work on UTM Technology for this OE is sufficient.

29

Low Altitude Rural Elements

RoadmapElement

Description:

UAS Safety andRisk

Barrier: • Overall Safety and Risk across vehicle technologies and UTM have not been explicitly

documented and turned into policy. Vehicles (sUAS) have not been demonstrated as airworthy as part of a system that includes UTM

NASA Role: • Partnering to build vehicle technologies, and conduct broad safety analysis specific to a system

that includes all necessary components of the system (including UTM as required)• Partner with FAA to implement congressional language for UTM Pilot Program

Recommendation: NASA should increase investments around UTM Build 1 and Build 2, and the UTM Pilot Program to complete the needs of the Low Altitude Rural Environment


FAA has plans for policy to enable the majority of this OE. Known related Implementation Plan elements include NPRMs as well as UTM/ATM information exchange, UTM Pilot Program, and the Expanded Ops NPRM leveraging pathfinder lessons learned

Vehicle Noise Reduction and Policy

Recommendation: Satisfying the noise reduction challenges under the Low Altitude Urban OE will sufficiently address the noise reduction challenges for this OE.

30

IFR-Like Path Forward

OE: IFR-Like FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25

IFR

-Lik

e

UAS Technologies



Guidelines


SC-228 P2 MOPS (GBSAA & SATCOM)


High-Altitude ATM


Industry Industry needs to contribute technologies for DAA, C2, and flight/health management, etc. Industry also needs to engage in the certification process for these technologies.

FAA The FAA needs to develop ATM policies and procedures for this operational environment, including Upper Class E Airspace. The FAA also needs to implement necessary policies and regulations for vehicles that will operate in this operational environment by working closely with industry throughout the certification process.

NASA NASA needs to team with industry on high-risk technology development in areas of DAA, C2, and flight/health management, etc. NASA also needs to develop integrated test results in a relevant environment to inform both industry and the FAA on the development of safety standards and interoperability practices.

Airport Ops and Infrastructure


Power and Propulsion

*Public Acceptance and Trust addressed by various elements above for this OE

31

IFR-Like Elements

RoadmapElement

Description:

SC-228 P2 MOPS (GBSAA & SATCOM)

Barrier: • Technologies and Standards for DAA and C2 equipage necessary to support UAS operations in IFR-like

operating environments do not currently exist. The lack of standards makes it complicated, expensive, and risky for industry to pursue approvals to conduct missions in this operating environment.

NASA Role: • Development of concepts and technologies to inform standards development for DAA and C2. Perform

rigorous and complex tests in integrated and relevant environments.

Recommendation: NASA should continue to develop appropriate research findings for C2 under the UAS-NAS Project, and increase funding to support GBSAA elements.

32

IFR-Like Elements

RoadmapElement

Description:


Barrier: • Operational processes for standardization of critical vehicle technologies such as ABDAA, hazard

avoidance, autonomous landing, autonomous contingency management, unique C2 solutions, and others are not being robustly developed and/or do not consider the future state of autonomy technologies.

• Autonomous Contingency Management technologies (including FMS) and policies for a diverse set of highly capable vehicle classes

• Some Industry business models (HALE) require technology that allows one pilot to control multiple aircraft simultaneously.

• Policy associated with enabling standardized vehicle technologies is in work

NASA Role: • High-TRL research to inform UAS vehicle technologies, coupled with sufficient testing in an integrated

and relevant environment to enable operationalization.• Partnerships with UAS manufacturers and vehicle technology developers should be implemented to

conduct complex operational demonstrations integrating vehicles with critical elements of NextGen. Partnership strategies and complexity of final operational demos

Recommendation: NASA should transition fundamental vehicle research (SAA and C2) into a broader vehicle strategy, and start conducting broad vehicle research and technology development to overcome these technical barriers as soon as funding allows.

33

IFR-Like Elements

RoadmapElement

Description:

AirportOperations and Infrastructure

Barrier: • Neither surface operations nor infrastructure on airports have been sufficiently developed to support

UAS operations. This limits the ability of UAS surface operations to be efficiently integrated into traditional airport operations.

NASA Role: • High-TRL research to understand and develop NextGen surface technologies to enable efficient

manned/unmanned surface movement at mixed-use airports.

Recommendation: NASA should start conducting research and technology development to overcome these technical barriers as soon as funding allows.

Power andPropulsion

Barrier: • Technologies and certification processes for highly efficient power and propulsion solutions have not

been sufficiently developed to ensure missions are both cost-effective and environmentally sustainable.

NASA Role: • Technology development, integrated flight demonstrations, and data to support the certification

processes of highly efficient UAS power and propulsion solutions. • Possible to significantly leverage current projects like IASP Flight Demos and Capabilities Project, X-57

Recommendation: NASA should leverage existing efforts and supplement them with UAS specific research and technology development as soon as funding allows

34

IFR-Like Elements

RoadmapElement

Description:

High Altitude ATM

Barrier: • There has been little consideration given to the management of the high altitude volume of

airspace. This creates an implementation barrier as the skies above Class A Airspace become more occupied with UAS, and communications/weather balloons.

NASA Role: • Much like with UTM, NASA’s role is to leverage the vast experiences of the past to perform initial

research on the need and economics of a potential management system for this volume of airspace. Initial research may lead to requirements for implementation of UTM for HALE.

Recommendation: NASA’s work on UTM should be leveraged to perform studies on the need for traffic management concepts at High Altitudes (and possibly implement)


FAA has plans for policy to enable the majority of this OE, including the Early Implementation Plan and other outputs from the Implementation ARC. The FAA is also infusing inputs from the Controlled Airspace ARC

Public Acceptance and Trust

Recommendation: Elements such as cybersecurity and safety would be considered through other elements of the Roadmap. This is standard practice for aircraft that operate in this highly regulated airspace. Currently, SMARTNAS is not funded to consider the broad range of UAS projects, but could be considered as a means to gain efficiencies across the ARMD portfolio

35

Low Altitude Urban Path Forward

OE: Low Altitude Urban FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25

Lo

w A

ltit

ud

e U

rban

UAS Technologies



Guidelines


Vehicle Noise reduction and policy

Low Altitude ATM


Industry Industry needs to contribute vehicle technologies for addressing the unique challenges of operating in the first/last 50 feet. Theses include detecting and avoiding persons and property on the ground, and operating in and around varying weather conditions. Industry also needs to engage in the certification process for these technologies.

FAA The FAA needs to define the safety requirements for a UAS Traffic Management System and implement necessary policies and regulations for vehicles that will operate in this operational environment by working closely with industry throughout the certification process.

NASA NASA needs to foster development of a UAS Traffic Management System, in collaboration with both industry and the FAA, which allows for safe operations that are equitable across users within the low altitude volume of airspace. This includes developing concepts, modeling, simulation, and robust flight-testing.


Education and Public Advocacy Program

UTM Safety and Standardization

Cybersecurity


Counter-Drone

36

Low Altitude Urban Elements

RoadmapElement

Description:


Barrier: • Vehicles (primarily sUAS) are not built in manners that will provide sufficient airworthiness for BVLOS

operations, specifically in highly populated areas with operations over people. • Critical vehicle technologies such as geofencing, DAA (V-to-V, UAS-Manned), Hazard Avoidance, unique

C2 solutions, Contingency Management, and others are not being robustly developed• Policy associated with enabling standardized vehicle technologies with high levels of automation are

not currently being developed

NASA Role: • NASA should leverage industry investments to develop high reliability vehicle technologies and

demonstrate through cost-share partnerships• Autonomous Systems Project Vehicle technologies may apply to this OE

Recommendation: NASA should partner to develop enabling technologies, conduct more robust operational demos, and perform economic studies. Relevant center portfolio elements should be structured under current projects.

Low Altitude ATM

Barrier: • Ensuring a robust and scalable ATM system providing critical services to potentially millions of vehicles

operating in new, unique, and unforeseen manners.

NASA Role: • UTM TCL 3 and 4 must be conducted with high level of FAA and industry involvement, in a manner that

ensures tech transfer.

Recommendation: NASA’s work on UTM for this OE is sufficient to address many of the challenges, but expanding TCL 3 and 4 to include more robust Operational Demos, partnerships, and economic studies are required to fully address this challenge.

37


RoadmapElement

Description:

Low Altitude UTM: Safety and Standardization

Barrier: • R&D of UTM is expected to prove it is a necessary technology to enable routine access for this

OE. NASA, industry, and the FAA, do not have a plan yet to standardize and implement UTM

NASA Role: • NASA should conduct broad safety analysis and demonstrations specific to a system that includes

all necessary components of the system (including vehicle and UTM interoperability)• Partner with FAA to implement congressional language for UTM Pilot Program

Recommendation: NASA should standardize and operationalize UTM for low altitude environments


FAA has plans for policy to enable the majority of this OE. Known related Implementation Plan elements include NPRMs as well as UTM/ATM information exchange, UTM pilot program, and the Expanded Ops NPRM, which leverages pathfinder lessons learned

Vehicle NoiseReduction and Policy

Barrier: • Vehicle noise profiles coupled with the likelihood of high numbers of operations create

significant policy and public acceptance issues for sUAS in urban environments• Industry technologies and best practices to reduce noise of sUAS do not exist

NASA Role: • Leverage current NASA project expertise from AAVP Revolutionary Vertical Lift Technology

project to study and partner on sUAS Noise issues

Recommendation: Leverage AAVP sUAS noise TC (currently in draft/formulation) to implement near term needs to reduce noise barriers

38


RoadmapElement

Description:

Cybersecurity

Barrier: • New cybersecurity techniques will be required to accommodate architectures that include cloud

based infrastructures interfacing with the ATM system.• Significant numbers of companies entering the market with minimal experience in aviation and

cybersecurity.

NASA Role: • Projects like SMARTNAS have critical skillsets that should be leveraged to implement research

activities across all Low Altitude Urban Roadmap elements, and to lead the industry towards best practices for cybersecurity.

Recommendation: Leverage SMARTNAS project to reduce cybersecurity risks related to civil operations in all OEs.

Counter-Drone

Barrier: • Counter-drone technologies are a significant technology and policy barrier. Primarily this

element (or these elements) will be covered by the FAA implementation plan through partnerships with DOD, Industry, and airports

NASA Role: • NASA should implement technical solutions not being adequately addressed into current

systems, and participate with the community to solve the counter-drone gaps.

Recommendation: In conjunction with industry and OGAs, NASA UTM research should incorporate technology development concepts for counter-drone.

Education and Outreach

Recommendation: NASA should implement an Education and Outreach campaign focused on UTM and this high demand operating environment. Campaign should leverage demos from other roadmap elements, but also include significant increases in other public outreach

39

VFR-Like Path Forward

OE: VFR-Like FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25

VF

R-L

ike

UAS Technologies



Guidelines


SC-228 P2 MOPS (ABSAA & C2)

ATM/UTM Interoperability



Industry Industry needs to contribute technologies for DAA solutions, and the expansion of terrestrial communications, etc. Industry also needs to engage in the certification process for these technologies.

FAA The FAA needs to develop ATM policies and procedures for this operational environment. The FAA also needs to implement necessary policies and regulations for vehicles that will operate in this operational environment by working closely with industry throughout the certification process.

NASA NASA needs to team with industry on high-risk technology development in areas of alternative ABSAA, and expanded terrestrial communications. NASA also needs to develop integrated test results in a relevant environment to inform both industry and the FAA on the development of safety standards and interoperability practices.


Power and Propulsion

*Public Acceptance and Trust addressed by various elements above for this OE

Airport Ops and Infrastructure

40

VFR-Like Elements

RoadmapElement

Description:

SC-228 P2 MOPS (ABSAA and C2)

Barrier: • Technologies and Standards for DAA and C2 equipage necessary to support UAS operations in VFR-like

operating environments do not currently exist. The lack of standards makes it complicated, expensive, and risky for industry to pursue approvals to conduct missions in this operating environment.

NASA Role: • Development of concepts and technologies to inform standards development for DAA and C2. Perform

rigorous and complex tests in integrated and relevant environments.

Recommendation: NASA should continue to develop appropriate research findings under the UAS-NAS Project.

41

VFR-Like Elements

RoadmapElement

Description:


Barrier: • Operational processes for standardization of critical vehicle technologies such as ABDAA, hazard

avoidance, autonomous landing, autonomous contingency management, unique C2 solutions, and others are not being robustly developed and/or do not consider the future state of autonomous technologies.

• Autonomous Contingency Management technologies (including FMS) and policies for a diverse set of highly capable vehicle classes

• Vehicles that operate in this Operating Environment will generally be smaller than manned aviation aircraft and will likely need to meet requirements of the UTM, ATM, or both.

• Policy associated with enabling recommended standardized vehicle technologies are largely unknown

NASA Role: • High-TRL research to inform UAS vehicle technologies, coupled with sufficient testing in an integrated

and relevant environment to enable operationalization.• Partnerships with UAS manufacturers and vehicle technology developers should be implemented to

conduct complex operational demonstrations integrating vehicles with critical elements of NextGen. Partnership strategies and complexity of final operational demos


42

VFR-Like Elements

RoadmapElement

Description:

AirportOperations and Infrastructure

Barrier: • Neither surface operations nor infrastructure on airports have been sufficiently developed to support

UAS operations. This limits the ability of UAS surface operations to be efficiently integrated into traditional airport operations.

• Off-airport CONOPs need to be better defined and guidelines established for using alternative sites.

NASA Role: • High-TRL research to understand and develop NextGen surface technologies to enable efficient

manned/unmanned surface movement at mixed-use airports.• Research is needed for off-airport landing pads and operations to/from those alternate landing sites.


Power andPropulsion

Barrier: • Technologies and certification processes for highly efficient power and propulsion solutions have not

been sufficiently developed to ensure missions are both cost-effective and environmentally sustainable.

NASA Role: • Technology development, integrated flight demonstrations, and data to support the certification

processes of highly efficient UAS power and propulsion solutions. • Possible to significantly leverage current projects like IASP Flight Demonstrations and Capabilities

Project, X-57.

Recommendation: NASA should leverage existing efforts and supplement them with new research and technology development as soon as funding allows

43

VFR-Like Elements

RoadmapElement

Description: (estimated annual cost outside of current funded and planned projects)

Next Gen ATM and Low Alt. ATM interoperability

Barrier: • How the UTM and ATM will work together in many operating environments is unknown, but it

likely will not be acceptable to require vehicle systems to comply with two sets of equipage. • Leveraging UTM concepts to make the ATM more efficient is promising, but methodology,

prioritization, and implementation planning requires research.

NASA Role: • Leverage UTM project expertise and expand it into research efforts to potentially improve the

entire ATM system

Recommendation: Leverage UTM project expertise and expand it into research efforts to potentially improve the entire ATM system


FAA policy plans for this Operating Environment are largely unknown. The FAA will like infuseinputs from the Controlled Airspace ARC and UTM Pilot Program to make policy decisions without more rigorous research

Public Acceptance and Trust

Recommendation: Elements such as cybersecurity and Safety should be considered through other elements of the Roadmap. This is standard practice for aircraft that operate in this highly regulated airspace. Currently, projects like SMARTNAS are not funded to consider the broad range of UAS projects, but could be considered as a means to gain efficiencies across the ARMD portfolio

• Operational Environment Roadmaps ensure all classes of UAS across all classes of airspace are being individually enabled

• Several management and technical activities apply to multiple Operating Environments

• An Overarching Roadmap was developed to:– Demonstrate interoperability across all Operating Environments

– Document management initiatives that should be carried out to most efficiently leverage NASA’s unique skills and abilities

44

Overarching Roadmap and Management Initiatives

NASA’s unique position and brand presents many potential opportunities to accelerate UAS integration, some of which are not

research and technology development specific.

45

Overarching Roadmap

Roadmap Elements FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25

Operating

Environment

Roadmaps

Management

Initiatives EXCOM

Global Leadership

Education & Public Outreach

Economic

Analysis

UAS Access

Integrated Product

Team (IPT)

NAS-wide

Mod. / Sim.

X-system / ATD-Like

Operational

Demonstrations

VFR-like Roadmap

IFR-like Roadmap

Low-Alt Urban Roadmap

Low-Alt Rural Roadmap

Significant efficiencies can be gained by leveraging technical efforts spanning all four operating environment roadmaps as well

as the establishment of a common management structure

46

Overarching Roadmap Elements

RoadmapElement

Description:

Integrated Product Team

In order to ensure integration across efforts that span the OE roadmaps, and Integrated Product Team (IPT) should be considered. The IPT would also ensure appropriate levels of interoperability across roadmaps. It is recommended that the IPT host an annual NASA internal research coordination meeting to ensure all NASA UAS efforts (project and center) are aligned.

NAS-Wide Modeling & Simulation

NAS-wide simulations and Human in the Loop experiments should be utilized to demonstrate how UAS of varying sizes and levels of automation can be integrated with manned aircraft across each operating environment. These simulations can show scale of operational impacts.

X-System Operational Demonstrations

These Operational Demonstrations are, at minimum, envisioned to be capstone-like activities.Each Capstone would combine as many of the roadmap elements as feasible into a final mission oriented, pre-defined, demonstration in the NAS. Comprehensive partnerships with industry will need to be developed in order to maximize industry and NASA developed technologies. X-System demonstrations would be far reaching demonstrations (ATD like) that drive towards specific implementation of far reaching ARMD initiatives like Autonomy and/or ODM.

Economic AnalysisEconomic analysis should be conducted across all Roadmap Elements. This analysis should support cost effectiveness, commercial viability, and assist in research prioritization.

Education and Public Outreach

NASA should conduct a public campaign to explain the benefits of UAS Public perception is a significant barrier to routine UAS operations. Messaging should include privacy, safety, and cybersecurity. NASA needs to highlight how UAS improve the lives of the public.

EXCOMThe EXCOM should continue to provide leadership and oversight by continuing to work together and establishing a common civil / commercial implementation plan that all participants buy-in to and support by contributing resources and sharing information.

Global LeadershipNASA should continue providing global leadership while expanding efforts to address the difficult technical UAS airspace integration challenges.








Discussion Topics

47

• In order for NASA to remain a leader in aviation, the “routine UAS access” roadmaps should be balanced against long term vision considerations (not necessarily tied to today’s state of the art)

• Evolutionary Technology Development: leverages systematic development and provides a high probability of achieving the end state (e.g. switchbacks to the top of the mountain)– Leverage UAS technologies and concepts as foundational technologies

– Develop a plan that allows UAS technologies to converge on out year visions for the next era of the aviation industry (i.e. autonomy and ODM)

• Revolutionary Technology Development: new revolutionary technologies are a higher risk to rely on, but provide a shorter path to the end state if achieved (e.g. climb straight up the cliff to the top of the mountain)– Must consider Game Changing Technologies along the way that have

potential to disrupt all aspects of the aviation industry

48

Long Term Vision Considerations

49

Achieving the Next Era of Aviation

UAS Integration - UAS Integration is the foundation for the revolution of the aviation industry

• Highly Automated Systems: Autonomy has the potential to revolutionize the role of the human by enabling multi-vehicle control, manned-unmanned teaming, & swarming.

• Revolutionized C2: Secure radio technologies that holistically consider current and future CNS requirements and eliminate the need for aircraft to carry multiple pieces of communications equipment

• Spectrum: Available spectrum allocations are a collection of stove-pipe technologies and not scalable. A radical approach to spectrum utilization could be game-changing.

• UTM: If adopted, several UTM concepts could revolutionize the ATM system.

• Cybersecurity: Implementation of robust and ever-evolving cybersecurity techniques into new and already-fielded systems could make many of todays technologies obsolete.

• Ultra-endurance Power Solutions: Advanced power and storage solutions are needed to expand the range and endurance of UAS to enable their future business cases.

• Robust Navigation: Reliable and innovative approaches to navigation independent of GPS-based systems such as ADS-B, causing today’s avionics to be re-designed

• Micro- and Nano-technology: Miniaturization will allow smaller UAS to adopt and integrate technologies currently only available on larger and medium-sized UAS.

50

Game Changing Technologies and Techniques

Game Changing Technology advancements could expedite the next era of aviation, and make many current technology

development activities obsolete








Discussion Topics

51

• Continue funding projects focused on implementing Routine UAS Access Roadmaps

• Prioritize elements of the cohesive strategy and leverage as part of upcoming PPBE cycle

• Continue leveraging TAC program and other NASA sponsored innovations as the primary means to develop game changing technologies

52

Recommendations

• Prior to Pre-SPMR (1/23– 2/8)– IASP/AOSP initial roadmaps, element definition, and ROM assessments

• Pre-SPMR through SPMR (2/9 – 3/6)– Begin prioritization of Roadmap elements

– Assess all ARMD work against the Cohesive strategy

– Initiate action to projects to perform ROM assessment as part of PRG in support of PPBE milestones

• SPMR through Initial PPBE Budget Submits (3/6 – 4/15)– Receive ROM assessments in support of PPBE

– Assessment of ODM Concepts

• Initial PPBE submit through final ARMD submit (4/15 – 6/15)– Determination of PPBE budget scenarios and path forward

– Inclusion of ODM gaps into UAS Cohesive Strategy

53

UAS Cohesive Strategy Next Steps (PPBE 19)

Cohesive ARMD Full UAS Integration Strategy - NASA · Cohesive ARMD Full UAS Integration Strategy...

Documents

Transcript of Cohesive ARMD Full UAS Integration Strategy - NASA · Cohesive ARMD Full UAS Integration Strategy...