1. FAA Support for DoD’s UAS AI Joint Test Joint University Program (JUP) TIM Al Schwartz, Modeling and Simulation Branch, ANG-C55 January 21, 2016

2. Project Overview 2 DOD UAS Airspace Integration Joint Test (UAS AI JT) Team (Sponsor)  Researching the development of standard operating procedures  Includes contingency operations

3. Two Phases and Teams on the Project Two distinct teams working different experiments  ANG-C41: fast-time computer simulation o Assisted DOD team in development of procedural charts to test if flyable by UAS and have low impact on other National Airspace System (NAS) traffic o Provides input into HITL in number of ways (e.g. solving issues procedure charts)  ANG-E: HITL experiment in WJHTC labs o Examine the effectiveness of standardized procedures for UAS arrival, departure, en route, and contingency operations across all DoD services o Across 3 phases of flight: Terminal Area, Transit, Operating Area Both teams benefit from collaboration as each set of experiments are developed in a phased time line 3 Dec Nov ‘13 Jan’14FebMarAprMayJunJulAugSep ANG-C41 : Computer Simulation ANG-E : Human-in-the-Loop Phase 1: Phase 2:

4. Model Preparation Experimental Design Input Data Preparation Simulation Conduct and Analysis # # ANG-C41 Task (See Table 5 of PSS) Deliverable (See Table 2 of PSS) DOD Task (See Table 5 of PSS)Technical Interchange Meeting FebDecNov ‘13Jan ‘14AprJunMayMar (MP1) Gather Aircraft Performance Characteristics (MP2) Develop Aircraft Verification Scenarios (MP3) Run Simulation (MP4) Analyze Simulation Results (MP5) Document Verified Aircraft Performance Characteristics 2 (ED1) Determine Initial Set of Metrics (ED2) Document Experimental Design 1 Flight Test 1 Program Review (IDP3) Gather SME Feedback on Chart and Traffic Validity (IDP4) Provide Traffic Sample (IDP6) Develop Initial Chart Scenarios in Simulation Tool (IDP5) Configure Metrics in Simulation Tool (IDP2) Develop Data Input Tools (IDP1) Gather Traffic Recordings (ICV1) Execute Initial Simulation Runs (ICV3) Document Initial Simulation Results (CVU2.3) Modify Charts – if necessary (CVU2.4) Refine Chart Scenarios (CVU2.6) Analyze Update 2 (CVU2.1) Update UAS Charts (CVU2.2) Gather SME Feedback (CVU2.5) Execute Update 2 Simul. (CVU2.7) Doc. Final Sims (ICV2) Analyze Initial Simulation Runs (ICV4) TIM to Discuss Results of Initial Simulation Runs (CVU2.9) Document Final Results & Methodology 4 (CVU1.3) Modify Updated UAS Charts – if necessary (CVU1.4) Refine UAS Chart Scenarios in Simulation Tool (CVU1.6) Analyze Update 1 of Simulation Runs (CVU1.1) Update UAS Charts (CVU1.2) Gather SME Feedback on Updated Charts (CVU1.5) Execute Update 1 of Simulation Runs (CVU1.7) Document Update 1 of Simulation Results (CVU1.8) TIM to Discuss Results of Update 1 Simulation Runs(CVU2.8) Final TIM 3 Initial UAS Procedure Chart Delivered Project Complete

5. Domain: En route airspace, Terminal, Airport Primary Capabilities: Simulation, conflict prediction, conflict resolution, visual demonstration, and metrics Primary Use: Analysis of procedures, decision support tools Past/Current usage: IADCS, SVO, UAS DOD JT, Wx Requirements, ORC Air Traffic Optimization (AirTOp) AirTOp is a gate-to-gate continuous fast-time simulator, with a multi-agent architecture. It can simulate en-route, approach and ground operations, and combinations of the three. AirTOp evaluates, among others, capacity, delay, flight efficiency, safety and controller workload related metrics.

6. Scenario Information Types and Number  Baseline (NAS flights only) - 2  Nominal (NAS flights + UAS no contingency) - 12  Contingency (NAS flights + UAS contingency) - 24 Manned traffic  Based on flows seen in ~60 days of operational data  Increased to 50-60 flights per hour in RAPCON Airports  KRDR and KGFK  North and South Flows modeled 6

7. Iterative Approach & Objectives 3 Iterations Compare Nominal versus Baseline  Answers key question: how does UAS impact the NAS when UAS follows standardized procedure? Compare Contingency versus Baseline  Answers key question: how does UAS impact the NAS when UAS follows standardized procedure and experiences a loss of link? Compare Contingency versus Nominal  Answers key question: what impact is added to the NAS when UAS follows standardized procedure and experiences a loss of link? 7

8. Analysis Aircraft Performance Verification (First Iteration Only) UAS Conflict Analysis Propensity  The likelihood of a safety significant event occurring during normal operations Separation Event Counts  Conflict/Loss of Separation: < 3nm or < 1000 ft.  Encounter: < 9nm or < 3000 ft. Separation Statistics  Minimum max-ratio (MMR)  Minimum horizontal separation (MH)  Minimum vertical separation (MV) 8

9. Aircraft Performance Verification 9

10. UAS Conflict Analysis 10 In this case, found need to move a waypoint due to route proximity with NAS traffic.

11. 11 Latitude Longitude HOGER PTRBG LAKTO NRTWD HONNE CONWY PISEK LANKN AGECU Lower Propensity Higher Propensity Conceptual Propensity Map

12. Propensity Chart: Shadow 12

13. Separation Event Counts 13

14. Separation Statistics 14 Min Max Ratio

15. Simulation Conclusions Radius of Holding Pattern (CHP and FTP)  Global Hawk can’t meet 1.5NM turn radius above 18,000ft  Above RAPCON airspace, separate procedures should be used The Grand Forks UA procedures don’t add many conflicts to the RAPCON area Potential risk is found in many areas on the routes  Important to note for the HITL scenario development 15

16. HITL Recommendations Potential Areas of Risk to Study  UA arrival at KRDR may conflict with KGFK arrivals  Shadow arrival with other KRDR arrival o New parallel runway operations  Lost Link on departure may conflict with overflights  Lost Link on arrival, regained at SCOTT o Path SCOTT to IAF involves sequencing with KGFK arrivals  Hold at IAF may conflict with KGFK arrivals  Global Hawk Lost Link on departure  ANETA to GLIIB and LANKN to HONNE  Path crosses the airspace and may conflict with KGFK arrivals 16

17. For ANG-C41’s Phase 1 Task Delivered Final Report Documents UAS chart validation study performed to support subsequent human-in-the-loop (HITL) for DOD FAA ANG-C41 planned, developed, conducted, and analyzed a set of concise iterative fast-time computer simulation experiments to perform this study Key research questions:  Can the UAS fly the standardized procedures?  What are their simulated impact on the NAS? Also, specific recommendations were made on potential areas of interest when performing the HITL experiment 17