February 2015 

NASA/TP–2015-218684 

Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration into 

the National Airspace System Visual-Line-of-Sight 

Human-in-the-Loop Experiment 

Anna C. Trujillo and Rania W. Ghatas 

Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 

Raymon McAdaragh 

Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies, Hampton, Virginia 

Daniel W. Burdette 

Northrop Grumman, Hampton, Virginia 

James R. Comstock 

Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 

Lucas E. Hempley 

Northrop Grumman, Hampton, Virginia 

Hui Fan 

Analytical Mechanics Associates, Inc., Hampton, Virginia 
NASA STI Program . . . in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA scientific and technical information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role. 

The NASA STI program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Officer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NTRS Registered and its public interface, the 

NASA Technical Reports Server, thus providing one 

of the largest collections of aeronautical and space 

science STI in the world. Results are published in both 

non-NASA channels and by NASA in the NASA STI 

Report Series, which includes the following report 

types: 

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major significant phase of 

research that present the results of NASA 

Programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of significant 

scientific and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA counter-part of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent of 

graphic presentations. 

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. 

Scientific and technical findings that are 

preliminary or of specialized interest, 

e.g., quick release reports, working 

papers, and bibliographies that contain minimal 

annotation. Does not contain extensive analysis. 

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and 

technical findings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees. 

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. 

Collected papers from scientific and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or 

co-sponsored by NASA. 

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, 

technical, or historical information from NASA 

programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest. 

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. 

English-language translations of foreign 

scientific and technical material pertinent to 

NASA’s mission. 

Specialized services also include organizing 

and publishing research results, distributing 

specialized research announcements and feeds, 

providing information desk and personal search 

support, and enabling data exchange services. 

For more information about the NASA STI program, 

see the following: 

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov 

• E-mail your question to help@sti.nasa.gov 

• Phone the NASA STI Information Desk at 

757-864-9658 

• Write to: 

NASA STI Information Desk 

Mail Stop 148 

NASA Langley Research Center 

Hampton, VA 23681-2199 
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

Langley Research Center 

Hampton, Virginia 23681-2199 

 

February 2015 

NASA/TP–2015-218684 

Small Unmanned Aircrafy Systems Integration into 

the National Airspace System Visual-Line-of-Sight 

Human-in-the-Loop Experiment 

Anna C. Trujillo and Rania W. Ghatas 

Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 

Raymon McAdaragh 

Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies, Hampton, Virginia 

Daniel W. Burdette 

Northrop Grumman, Hampton, Virginia 

James R. Comstock 

Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 

Lucas E. Hempley 

Northrop Grumman, Hampton, Virginia 

Hui Fan 

Analytical Mechanics Associates, Inc., Hampton, Virginia 
Available from: 

NASA STI Program / Mail Stop 148 

NASA Langley Research Center 

Hampton, VA 23681-2199 

Fax: 757-864-6500 

Acknowledgments 

The authors would like to thank Unisys and the Simulation Development and Analysis Branch for their 

help in programming and running the experiment in the TES. The authors would also like to thank various 

Langley researchers who are also RC pilots for the ir help in tuning the sUA simulation dynamics and 

finalizing the scenarios. 

The use of trademarks or names of manufacturers in this report is for accu rate reporting and does not constitute an 

official endorsement, either expressed or implied, of such products or manufacturers by the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 
 i 

Table of Contents

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. iii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ iv

Nomenclature ................................................................................................................................ v

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 1

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Organization of Report ........................................................................................................ 2

1.3 Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Scope and Objectives ......................................................................................................... 3

1.4.1 UAS in the NAS Human System Integration Objectives ............................................... 3

1.4.2 Experiment Objectives .................................................................................................. 3

2 Method ....................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Subjects ............................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Apparatus ............................................................................................................................ 4

2.2.1 Simulator ....................................................................................................................... 4

2.2.2 Ground Control Station ................................................................................................. 5

2.3 Scenarios ............................................................................................................................ 6

2.3.1 Scenarios 1-3: Surry Nuclear Power Plant Radiation Emission and Power Line 

Inspection ..................................................................................................................... 6

2.3.2 Scenarios 4-6: Blackstone Army Airfield (BKT) Search and Rescue Mission ............... 7

2.4 Air Traffic Control and Mission Control Positions .............................................................. 11

2.4.1 Air Traffic Control Position .......................................................................................... 11

2.4.2 Mission Control Position ............................................................................................. 13

2.5 Subject Communication with ATC and MC ....................................................................... 14

2.5.1 Pilot Requests for Takeoff and Landing ...................................................................... 14

2.5.2 Notification of Traffic in Sight ...................................................................................... 14

2.6 Experiment Design ............................................................................................................ 14

2.6.1 Independent Variables ................................................................................................ 14

2.6.2 Organization of Independent Variables ...................................................................... 15

2.6.3 Dependent Variables .................................................................................................. 16

2.7 Procedure .......................................................................................................................... 18

2.7.1 Briefing and Training Session ..................................................................................... 18

2.7.2 Data Collection ........................................................................................................... 21

2.7.3 Debriefing Session ...................................................................................................... 21

2.8 Hypotheses ....................................................................................................................... 22
 ii 

3 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 22

3.1 Mission .............................................................................................................................. 22

3.1.1 Lateral Errors at Waypoints ........................................................................................ 22

3.1.2 Altitude Errors ............................................................................................................. 23

3.1.3 Subjective Mission Ratings ......................................................................................... 26

3.1.4 Collisions .................................................................................................................... 27

3.1.5 Mission Tracks ............................................................................................................ 31

3.2 Maintaining VLOS ............................................................................................................. 31

3.2.1 Lateral Distance .......................................................................................................... 34

3.2.2 Altitude ........................................................................................................................ 35

3.3 Interaction with ATC and Manned Aircraft ......................................................................... 36

3.3.1 Interaction with Manned Aircraft ................................................................................. 36

3.3.2 Interaction with ATC and MC ...................................................................................... 37

4 Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 38

4.1 Hypothesis 1: sUAS Simulator Realism ............................................................................ 38

4.2 Hypothesis 2: Obstacle Avoidance .................................................................................... 38

4.3 Hypothesis 3: Manned-Aircraft Avoidance ........................................................................ 38

4.4 Hypothesis 4: Human System Integration Deficiencies ..................................................... 39

4.5 Hypothesis 5: PFD Need ................................................................................................... 39

4.6 Hypothesis 6: Map Display Configuration Preference ....................................................... 39

5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 39

6 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 39

References .................................................................................................................................. 41

Appendix A: Subject Background Questionnaire ........................................................................ 43

Appendix B: Surry Nuclear Power Plant Data Run Paper Maps ................................................. 45

Appendix C: Fort Pickett Data Run Paper Maps ......................................................................... 51

Appendix D: Air Traffic Control Alerts about Other Aircraft ......................................................... 57

Appendix E: Surry Nuclear Power Plant Scripts for Air Traffic Control and Mission Control ...... 60

Appendix F: Fort Pickett Scripts for Air Traffic Control and Mission Control ............................... 72

Appendix G: Subject Run Orders ................................................................................................ 87

Appendix H: Ground Control Station Display Questionnaire ...................................................... 93

Appendix I: Final/Exit Questionnaire ........................................................................................... 96

Appendix J: Experimenter’s Instructions Sheet .......................................................................... 99

Appendix K: Informed Consent Form ........................................................................................ 102

Appendix L: Privacy Act Notice ................................................................................................. 106

Appendix M: Mission Tracks ..................................................................................................... 107
 iii 

List of Figures 

Figure 1 – TES Surry Nuclear Plant Scene Rendering ................................................................. 5

Figure 2 – Scenario 1 Map of Waypoints ...................................................................................... 8

Figure 3 – Scenario 1 Map of Other Aircraft Paths ....................................................................... 9

Figure 4 – Scenario 4 Map of Waypoints .................................................................................... 10

Figure 5 – Scenario 4 Map of Other Aircraft Paths ..................................................................... 11

Figure 6 – ATC Alerts Pop-Ups and Test and Evaluation Simulator .......................................... 12

Figure 7 – PFD ............................................................................................................................ 15

Figure 8 – Moving Map ............................................................................................................... 16

Figure 9 – Experiment Design Example ..................................................................................... 17

Figure 10 – Electronic Version of the Modified CH Rating .......................................................... 19

Figure 11 – Electronic Version of the NASA-TLX ....................................................................... 20

Figure 12 – Display Layout and GCS Realism by Display Configuration ................................... 23

Figure 13 – Percentage of Waypoints in Loiter Area Box by Display Configuration ................... 24

Figure 14 – Altitude Error by Display Configuration .................................................................... 24

Figure 15 – Altitude Error by Waypoint ....................................................................................... 25

Figure 16 – Overall Altitude Error by Run ................................................................................... 25

Figure 17 – Overall Altitude Error by Subject License Type and Display Configuration ............. 26

Figure 18 – Ability to Maintain Altitude and Heading by Run ...................................................... 27

Figure 19 – CH Rating by Run Boxplot ....................................................................................... 28

Figure 20 – NASA-TLX Rating by Run ....................................................................................... 29

Figure 21 – Display Ranking by Display Configuration Boxplot .................................................. 29

Figure 22 – Number of Collisions by Scenario ............................................................................ 30

Figure 23 – Number of Collisions by Scenario and Display Configuration ................................. 30

Figure 24 – Loiter Area by Subject ............................................................................................. 31

Figure 25 – Altitude Error by Subject .......................................................................................... 32

Figure 26 – Loiter Area by Subject License Type and Display Configuration ............................. 32

Figure 27 – Subject A Mission Track for Scenario 1, Run 3, Map Display Configuration ........... 33

Figure 28 – Subject B Mission Track for Scenario 1, Run 13, Map Display Configuration ......... 33

Figure 29 – Maximum Lateral Distance from Eye Point Average by Run ................................... 34

Figure 30 – Lateral Distance and Points BVR from Eye Point by Display Configuration ............ 35

Figure 31 – Maximum Altitude and Points Above 400 ft Averaged by Display Configuration ..... 36

Figure 32 – Number of Aircraft Missed and Average Time to Spot Aircraft by Display 

Configuration ........................................................................................................... 37

 
 iv 

List of Tables 

Table 1 – Eye Point, sUAS Starting Position, and Other Traffic for Scenario 1 ............................ 7

Table 2 – Eye Point, sUAS Starting Position, and Other Traffic for Scenario 4 ............................ 9

Table 3 – Loiter Area by Display Condition ................................................................................. 23

Table 4 – Ability to Maintain Altitude at Waypoints by Subject License Type ............................. 26

Table 5 – Ability to Maintain Altitude and Heading by Display Condition .................................... 27

Table 6 – Performance by Display Condition .............................................................................. 28

Table 7 – Subject Reported Percentage of Time VLOS is Lost by Display ................................ 34

Table 8 – Subjects’ Perceived Abillity to Avoid Manned Aircraft by Display ............................... 37
 v 

Nomenclature 

AAF Army Airfield 

ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast 

AGL Ft Above Ground Level 

AMA Analytical Mechanics Associates 

ANOVA Analysis Of Variance 

ARC Aviation Rulemaking Committee 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

ATC Air Traffic Control 

ATP Airline Transport Pilot 

BKT Blackstone Army Airfield 

BVR Beyond-Visual-Range 

CH Cooper-Harper 

COA Certificate of Authorization 

CONOPS Concept of Operations 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FAF Felker Army Airfield 

FOV Field Of View 

ft feet 

GCS Ground Control Station 

GPS Global Positioning System 

hr(s) hour(s) 

HSI Human Systems Integration 

kts knots 

MASPS Minimum Aviation Safety Performance Standards 

MC Mission Control 

min minute 

NAS National Airspace System 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

PFD Primary Flight Display 

RMS Root Mean Square 

SAR Search And Rescue 

SC Sub-Committee 

SE Standard Error Of The Mean 

sec second(s) 

sUA Small Unmanned Aircraft 

sUAS Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

TES Test and Evaluation Simulator 

TIS-B Traffic Information Service – Broadcast 

TLX Task Load Index 

UAS Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

VFR Visual Flight Rules 

VLOS Visual Line-of-Sight 

yds yards 

yr(s) year(s) 
 1 

Abstract 

As part of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National 

Airspace System (NAS) project, research on integrating small 

UAS (sUAS) into the NAS was underway by a human-systems 

integration (HSI) team at the NASA Langley Research Center. 

Minimal to no research has been conducted on the safe, effective, 

and efficient manner in which to integrate these aircraft into the 

NAS. sUAS are defined as aircraft weighing 55 pounds or less. 

The objective of this human system integration team was to build 

a UAS Ground Control Station (GCS) and to develop a research 

test-bed and database that provides data, proof of concept, and 

human factors guidelines for GCS operations in the NAS. 

The objectives of this experiment were to evaluate the 

effectiveness and safety of flying sUAS in Class D and Class G 

airspace utilizing manual control inputs and voice radio 

communications between the pilot, mission control, and air traffic 

control. The design of the experiment included three sets of GCS 

display configurations, in addition to a hand-held control unit. The 

three different display configurations were VLOS, VLOS + Primary 

Flight Display (PFD), and VLOS + PFD + Moving Map (Map). 

Test subject pilots had better situation awareness of their vehicle 

position, altitude, airspeed, location over the ground, and mission 

track using the Map display configuration. This configuration 

allowed the pilots to complete the mission objectives with less 

workload, at the expense of having better situation awareness of 

other aircraft. The subjects were better able to see other aircraft 

when using the VLOS display configuration. However, their 

mission performance, as well as their ability to aviate and 

navigate, was reduced compared to runs that included the PFD 

and Map displays. 

1 Introduction 

Due to the President’s signing of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2012, Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) are supposed to have published 

rules for full integration into the National Airspace System (NAS) by September 30, 2015, with 

small UAS (sUAS), those UAS under 55 pounds (lbs), having published rules by mid-2014 

(112th Congress, 2012). Some sUAS operations will be allowed in the Arctic regions of the 

United States 24-hours a day at an altitude of 2,000 feet (ft) within one year of the date of the 

law’s enactment. To date, in the United States, commercial sUAS operations have not been 

authorized, primarily because there are no official regulations and procedures to support them; 

whereas, in several other countries, this is not the case (McAdaragh, Comstock, Ghatas, 

Burdette, & Trujillo, 2014). The FAA currently generally allows the operation of sUAS in the 

NAS through the issuance of a Statement of Airworthiness and a Certificate of Authorization 

(COA) for public agencies, and through the issuance of an Experimental Airworthiness 

Certificate and a COA for civil operations to conduct research and development, crew training, 

and market surveys. 
 2 

1.1 Background 

The use of sUAS has become widespread throughout military operations over the past 

couple of decades because of their unique capabilities to accomplish tasks that humans on the 

ground and manned aircraft cannot achieve with as great an amount of effectiveness and 

efficiency. This has been noticed by commercial industry (e.g., delivery firms, film and 

photography businesses), as well as many other potential public and commercial sUAS user 

organizations, and several civil applications have been envisioned and designed. Some of 

these applications are designed to be conducted within Visual Line-of-Sight (VLOS), because 

their missions are local to the placement of the ground control station (GCS) and pilot, while 

others are designed to be conducted Beyond-Visual-Range (BVR) to more efficiently 

accomplish many missions currently flown by manned aircraft, or missions that are simply 

unable to be conducted by manned aircraft. 

Outside of the United States, many countries are already allowing the commercial use of 

UAS. For instance, in Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority evaluates and approves 

commercial UAS use on a case-by-case basis, and has recently proposed new rules to allow 

operators of sUAS weighing 2 kilograms or less to apply and gain approval to legally fly 

commercially by simply filling out an online application (Corcoran, 2013). In Canada, permits to 

fly UAS for commercial photography are also granted on a case-by-case basis (PRI's The 

World, 2013). In Mexico, there are no civil aviation authority regulations restricting commercial 

UAS use (Garcia, 2013). This is also the case in many other South American countries. 

In the United States, the FAA has commissioned the RTCA to develop operational and 

safety requirements, and Minimum Aviation Safety Performance Standards (MASPS) for UAS, 

but these standards will not address VLOS operations (RTCA, 2010). The Sub-Committee 

(SC)-203 (UAS committee) has concluded its work, publishing DO-344 concerning operational 

and safety requirements (RTCA, 2013); a new committee, SC-228, has begun work developing 

a MASPS document focusing on Detect, Sense and Avoid, and Communications. The 

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F-38 committee was also commissioned by 

the FAA to develop certification requirements for sUAS, but they are not addressing procedural 

or operational requirements for VLOS operations (Jewell, 2010). In 2012, the FAA published a 

Concept of Operations (CONOPS) document to address the NAS integration requirements for 

UAS, but this document also specifically excludes sUAS VLOS operations (Federal Aviation 

Administration, 2012). 

The research presented below begins to address some of the gaps regarding sUAS VLOS 

operations in the NAS. In particular, this experiment looked at some of the GCS information 

requirements for VLOS operations using a manual controller to command the sUAS in both 

controlled and uncontrolled airspace. 

1.2 Organization of Report 

The organization of this report is as follows. The rest of this introduction section (§1) 

includes the Purpose, and Scope and Objectives of this experiment. Section 2 describes the 

experimental method including the simulation setup (§2.42-§2.35), experiment design (§2.6), 

procedure (§2.7), and hypotheses (§2.8). The results section, section 3, presents the subjects’ 

ability to complete the mission (§3.1), to maintain VLOS (§3.2), and to interact with ATC (§3.3). 

Finally, this report closes with a discussion of the results (§4), conclusions (§5), and 

recommendations for further research (§6). 
 3 

1.3 Purpose 

The FAA has commissioned an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to address sUAS 

VLOS operations, but to date this committee has not issued any proposed rules. This may be 

partly because there is little research related to these type of operations upon which to base any 

rules or requirements. However, the FAA has published a UAS CONOPS document, which 

does apply to UAS as-well-as sUAS BVR operations (Federal Aviation Administration, 2012). 

Two rule-making committees addressing UAS (RTCA SC-203 and SC-228) are primarily 

focusing on operational requirements for larger UAS and sUAS that fly BVR. Meanwhile, a third 

committee (ASTM F-38) focusing on sUAS is only addressing the certification requirements of 

sUAS. There are currently no rules addressing integration of sUAS VLOS operations in to the 

NAS. In order to develop these rules, the FAA has expressed a desire for data regarding the 

ability of UAS to integrate into the NAS and this includes commercial and ubiquitous public-use 

sUAS that will fly in airspace other than Class G, which is probable for foreseen missions (e.g., 

police operations, real-estate filming) in large cities. The purpose of this study is to provide data 

that will help support the development of rules and regulations that will enable the integration of 

sUAS VLOS operations in the NAS. 

1.4 Scope and Objectives 

This research addresses future sUAS VLOS operations in Class D and G airspace, using 

two example scenarios, one a search and rescue (SAR) mission and another a nuclear power 

plant inspection mission. The research evaluated the effectiveness and safety of the missions, 

and the communications that take place between the pilot, Air Traffic Control (ATC), and the 

mission control (MC) specialist. It also addresses pilot situation awareness and workload levels 

under three different display configurations. 

1.4.1 UAS in the NAS Human System Integration Objectives 

The objective of the UAS in the NAS Human Systems Integration (HSI) is to provide UAS 

GCS requirements to the FAA; however, the following address the specific research objectives 

(NASA, n.d.): 

 Develop a research testbed and database to provide data and proof of concept for GCS 

operations in the NAS. 

 Coordinate with standards organizations [e.g., FAA, RTCA, and ASTM] to develop 

human factors guidelines for GCS operation in the NAS. 

1.4.2 Experiment Objectives 

The intention of this human-in-the-loop experiment was to evaluate the human system 

integration of a sUAS GCS and its pilot to determine its effectiveness to safely accomplish 

aviation and mission objectives through the use of manual vehicle control inputs, VLOS seeand-avoid procedures, and radio communications, while conducting a mission scenario within 

uncontrolled and controlled airspace operations. 

In general, the experiment objectives address the validity of the sUAS simulator and the 

NAS operational capability of a sUAS. The specific objectives of this experiment are as follows: 

1. Determine the validity of the sUAS simulator hardware and simulation software (the 

research testbed for the sUAS GCS) 

2. Determine the sUAS ability to safely avoid obstacles under VLOS operations 

3. Determine the effectiveness of the GCS in meeting normal NAS operational 

requirements for pilot/ATC communications 
 4 

4. Identify any potential human system integration deficiencies that could hinder the safe, 

effective, and efficient integration of sUAS VLOS mission within uncontrolled and 

controlled airspace 

2 Method 

This experiment utilized a simulator to depict the operational environment in which VLOS 

sUAS operations would be conducted and to run the sUAS simulation model. The subjects flew 

various scenarios using a GCS to control the sUAS. Each scenario included seven waypoints 

the sUAS had to fly to and loiter over for one minute, and the MC directed the subject pilots to 

fly the sUAS to each of these waypoints. Occasionally, other aircraft traffic would fly in the 

vicinity of their small unmanned aircraft (sUA). Most of the time ATC notified the subjects of the 

traffic. However, some of the traffic was not announced by ATC so that a subject’s situation 

awareness of his environment could be ascertained. Subjects had two-way communications 

with both the MC and ATC. The following sections detail this experimental method and setup. 

2.1 Subjects 

A total of nine male subjects participated in the simulation study on a voluntary basis. 

Subjects were recruited through the NASA recruiting service provided by Analytical Mechanics 

Associates (AMA) and were required to have experience as a remote control pilot and also to 

have experience communicating with ATC. Of the nine subjects, seven held pilots licenses – 

one was a Private Pilot, one was a Commercial Pilot, and five were Airline Transport Pilots 

(ATP). Those seven subjects had an average of 10,700±10,000 (average ± one standard 

deviation) manned flight hours (hrs) (a range of 500 hrs to 25,000 hrs with a median of 4,000 

hrs) and 23±11 years (yrs) of manned flight (a range of 5 yrs to 35 yrs with a median of 24 yrs). 

The subjects’ experience with remote control flying included an average of 1,900 remote control 

hrs (a range of 100 hrs to 5000 hrs with a median of 950 hrs) and 28±14 yrs of remote control 

piloting (a range of 8 yrs to 45 yrs with median of 34 yrs). A background questionnaire 

(Appendix A) was given to the subject at the end of the data collection process, during the 

debriefing session, which elicited the above information. 

2.2 Apparatus 

2.2.1 Simulator 

The Test and Evaluation Simulator (TES) was selected for use in this study because it 

featured an approximately 180 degree horizontal VLOS depiction of the operational environment 

in which the scenario missions took place. The subject operated the vehicle from a centralized 

location so that the entire mission area was in view from the GCS at all times. 

2.2.1.1 VLOS Display. The TES field of view (FOV) from the subject’s eye point was 184

horizontal at the top of the screen and 200 horizontal at the bottom of the screen, and 50 up 

and 60 down for a total of 110 vertical FOV. The spherical screen had a radius of 128 inches, 

non-collimated. Six (3x2) 1400x1050 pixel DLP projectors projected the scene at 1.93 

arcmin/pixel horizontal and 1.79 arcmin/pixel vertical. An example of the scene rendering in the 

TES is below (Figure 1 on page 5). 

2.2.1.2 sUA FASER Simulation Model and Hand-Held Control Unit. The simulated sUA used 

in this experiment was a MATLAB model based on an Ultra Stick 120 that was developed by the 

University of Minnesota (Murch, 2012) and is referred to as the FASER – Free-flying Aircraft for 

Subscale Experimental Research (Owens, Cox, & Morelli, 2006). The Ultra Stick 120 is a fixedwing sUA that weighs 11 pounds, and has a wingspan of 76 inches and a fuselage length of 65 

inches. The University of Minnesota MATLAB model, subsequently referred to here as FASER, 
 5 

Figure 1 – TES Surry Nuclear Plant Scene Rendering 

was modified in several ways to make it suitable for use in this experiment. An auto throttle was 

added to set the aircraft speed at 25 knots. This also required some modifications to the 

FASER to allow the plane model to be stable at these reduced speeds. A USB RC flight 

controller was integrated into the model to provide the flight control. The inputs from the RC 

flight controller were used to drive the control surface position in the FASER. This USB RC 

controller had the same look and feel as a modern RC controller, and is typically used by RC 

pilots to simulate flying to practice and develop skills without risking actual aircraft models. This 

control input directly controls the surface deflections of the FASER. 

2.2.2 Ground Control Station 

This section will describe the technical elements of the ground control station used during 

the simulation. These elements include the hand-held control unit (described above in 

§2.2.1.2), the desktop computer showing the display screens, and the radio communications. 

2.2.2.1 Display Screens. The same computer running the flight model in MATLAB also 

provided the displays for the GCS. This includes the primary flight display (PFD), moving map, 

and questionnaires display which appeared on a single 19-inch standard definition touch panel 

monitor located on a table next to the subject pilot. The computer was a PC running Windows 

7. All software was written in a combination of C, C++, and C#. During flight, the screen was 

configured with the moving map on top and the PFD on bottom. If a flight did not have one or 

both displays available, the subject saw a solid black display as appropriate. The touch panel 

interface was not used during flight. At the end of the flight, the displays were replaced with the 

questionnaires display. The format of the questionnaires changed depending on the question or 

rating scale being presented. Questions were answered by tapping on the screen at the 

appropriate location. For a complete description of the questionnaires display see §2.6.3. 
 6 

2.2.2.2 Radio Communications. Two-way radio communications for subject pilots in the TES 

Lab were simulated, using a Clear-Com Model MS-704 Intercom Systems four-channel base 

station controller directly hard-wired to three individual headsets with boom microphones 

deployed at the user stations. Functionally, those user stations were operated by ATC, MC, and 

the test subject pilot. All two-way aircraft radio communications were simulated using a single 

intercom channel. Subjects were briefed on this particular operational constraint prior to 

entering the TES Lab. Each user station was properly configured prior to the execution of 

practice and/or data runs by calibrating a small control box designed to allow selection of the 

appropriate intercom channel and control of the audio signal volume sent to each headset. 

During familiarization and practice runs, the subjects were allowed to speak to either ATC or 

MC, while conducting sound checks. Using this type of open-microphone intercom system 

presented no difficulties for any of the nine test subjects. Predetermined phraseology used by 

all parties helped to create an operational “radio” environment similar to a standard two-channel 

aircraft radio communications system. Using this audio protocol during actual flight simulations, 

subject pilots consistently appeared to maintain, without difficulties, normal “two-channel” radio 

operations as required by the experiment scenarios. In addition, research team members 

providing ATC and MC services found it quite easy to avoid possible radio “interference,” which 

might have resulted from inadvertent simultaneous transmissions of clearances or other mission 

messages. 

2.3 Scenarios 

The practice and experimental simulation data runs were derived from the following 

scenarios. For each scenario, the sUAS was equipped with a Global Positioning System (GPS) 

receiver and transmitter and this allowed the vehicle’s position to be presented on the subject’s 

moving map display in the experimental runs that included the this display. During each 

scenario, subject pilots would pilot their sUA just visually, with a primary flight display available, 

or with a primary flight display and moving map display available (§2.6.1). 

Each scenario also included manned air traffic that may or may not have been called out by 

ATC. The traffic was typically at low altitudes – 150 ft to 650 ft – in order to possibly elicit 

responses from subjects regarding manned air traffic in the vicinity at altitudes that could 

possibly affect them. ATC always requested that the subject “advise/report traffic in sight” for 

the ATC announced traffic. Subjects were not briefed on how to handle unannounced traffic in 

order to determine how sUA pilots may react to unexpected manned air traffic. See section 

2.4.1.2 on page 12 for further details. 

2.3.1 Scenarios 1-3: Surry Nuclear Power Plant Radiation Emission and Power Line 

Inspection 

These three scenarios described the application of a sUAS to support the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC). The sUAS included a small, less than 55 lbs, electrically 

powered fixed-wing FASER aircraft and a portable GCS, which consisted of a handheld 

controller and a laptop display. The sUAS pilot (an NRC inspector) was trained in sUAS launch, 

recovery, and mission operations, including ATC communications and operating procedures. In 

this scenario, the NRC inspector used an aircraft equipped with a radiation detection sensor and 

a surface observing video camera to collect data on radiation emission and power-line health 

within a 400-yard VLOS circumference of the Surry Nuclear Power Plant, while operating at or 

below 400 ft above ground level (AGL). Scenario maps with waypoints can be found in 

Appendix B. 

Since the operation was flown in both Felker Army Airfield (FAF) Class D airspace and 

Class G airspace, it was necessary that the subject pilot stay in contact with FAF Tower for 
 7 

coordination of the operation and for flight advisories concerning other aircraft around the Surry 

Nuclear Power Plant operation area. The subject flew the sUA manually within the operations 

area under continuous VLOS operations; the subject was briefed to fly at an altitude of 250 ft 

AGL. Since the operation was flown within VLOS, no flight plan was filed. 

Table 1 below, and Figure 2 on page 8 and Figure 3 on page 9 are indicative of how each of 

the three Surry Nuclear Power Plant scenarios were programmed for the simulation data runs. 

See Appendix B for the details on each of the Surry scenarios. 

2.3.2 Scenarios 4-6: Blackstone Army Airfield (BKT) Search and Rescue Mission 

These scenarios describe the application of a sUAS to support search and rescue first 

responders in the aftermath of a tornado that hit a manufacturing facility/lumber yard on the east 

side of an Army/Civil joint-use airport. One first responder, a State Highway Patrol officer, has 

employed the use of a sUA FASER aircraft, which included a portable GCS, from outside his 

cruiser. The GCS consisted of a handheld controller and a laptop display. The officer was 

trained in sUAS launch, recovery, and mission operations, including ATC communications and 

NAS operating procedures. The sUAS, capable of observing and recording high definition 

video, was used to attempt to locate one missing victim of the storm in the woods on the east 

side of the airport. Scenario maps with waypoints can be found in Appendix C. 

Since the operations were held in Class D airspace at the Blackstone Army Airfield (AAF) 

(BKT), it was necessary that the sUAS unit remain in contact with ATC during the course of the 

operation. Because the FASER was small, ATC coordination was necessary to ensure that 

other manned aircraft, also responding to the emergency, knew the general location of the 

sUAS. The subject pilot could fly VLOS operations with the unmanned aircraft at altitudes up to 

400 ft AGL; the subject, however, was briefed to manually fly at an altitude of 200 ft AGL. The 

subject also coordinated with a mission specialist at Mission Control (MC), who monitored the 

onboard camera and the recording of video data while directing the mission operation. Since 

the flight operation was conducted within VLOS, no flight plan was filed; however, clearance for 

takeoff and landing were required since the takeoff and landing was at the towered airport. 

Table 1 – Eye Point, sUAS Starting Position, and Other Traffic for Scenario 1 

Eye Point 

Latitude Longitude Altitude Heading 

37.163357 -76.697753 1.83 meters 22.5 

sUAS Starting Position 

Latitude Longitude Altitude Heading 

37.163543 -76.697622 12.19 meters 22.5 

Other Traffic Timing

Start Time (sec) End Time 

(sec) Velocity (knots(kts)) 

Other Traffic 1 120 240 150 

Other Traffic 2 310 457.540984 122 

Other Traffic 3 530 680 120 

Other Traffic Flight Paths

Latitude Longitude Altitude (ft) Heading 

Other Traffic 1 37.221 -76.6732 457.2 156 

Other Traffic 2 37.149 -76.6298 152.4 327 

Other Traffic 3 37.206 -76.7120 304.8 126 
 8 

Figure 2 – Scenario 1 Map of Waypoints 
 9 

Figure 3 – Scenario 1 Map of Other Aircraft Paths 

Table 2 below, and Figure 4 on page 10 and Figure 5 on page 11 are indicative of how each 

of the three Fort Pickett Blackstone Army Airfield scenarios were programmed for the simulation 

data runs. See Appendix C for the details on each of the Fort Pickett scenarios. 

Table 2 – Eye Point, sUAS Starting Position, and Other Traffic for Scenario 4 

Eye Point 

Latitude Longitude Altitude Heading 

37.0722148 -77.94992420 1.83 meters 90 

sUAS Starting Position 

Latitude Longitude Altitude Heading 

37.072475 -77.9497650 12.19 meters 90 

Other Traffic Timing

Start Time 

(sec) 

End Time 

(sec) Velocity (kts) 

Other Traffic 1 180 380 90 

Other Traffic Flight Paths

Latitude Longitude Altitude (ft) Heading 

Other Traffic 1 37.102 -77.9121 182.88 214 
 10 

Figure 4 – Scenario 4 Map of Waypoints 
 11 

Figure 5 – Scenario 4 Map of Other Aircraft Paths 

2.4 Air Traffic Control and Mission Control Positions 

2.4.1 Air Traffic Control Position 

The researcher at this experiment station operated the computer simulation and simulated 

ATC for the scenario by reading the ATC communication scripts and traffic alerts (Appendix D) 

to the subject pilot. In general, ATC granted all requests from the subject. This included 

requests for takeoff and resuming missions after possibly deviating due to manned air traffic. 

ATC traffic alerts were programmed to display at the ATC position in conjunction with traffic 

events (Figure 6 on page 12). They were timed to occur at appropriate times relative to actual 

aircraft entries into the simulation mission. Therefore, depending on how quickly each subject 

piloted his sUA from waypoint to waypoint, these traffic alerts were displayed when the UAS 

was at slightly different points along the mission route. 

All of the communication scripts for ATC for the Surry Nuclear Power Plant Inspection 

scenarios (description of scenarios in §2.3) are detailed in Appendix E and all of the scripts for 

the Fort Pickett SAR scenarios are detailed in Appendix F. The manned aircraft for each 

scenario were listed at the top of the each script so ATC could anticipate them. 

2.4.1.1 Clearance for Takeoff or Landing. Operations at the Surry Nuclear Power Plant were 

outside of the controllers’ visual range. If the subject requested clearance for takeoff, the 

controller responded: “FASER123, roger, altimeter two, niner, niner, two, wind one, eight, zero 

at five, report airborne;” after the subject confirmed, the controller responded “report on the 

ground when mission is completed.” 
 12 

Figure 6 – ATC Alerts Pop-Ups and Test and Evaluation Simulator 

Clearance for takeoff or landing was required at Blackstone Army Airfield (BKT) for the Fort 

Pickett SAR scenarios because the operation took place within sight of ATC in the vicinity of the 

airfield. If a subject requested clearance to takeoff and to land at the airfield, such a clearance 

was given. 

2.4.1.2 Notification of Other Aircraft. ATC would notify the subject of some of the other 

manned aircraft in the area. If the subject diverted to avoid the traffic, ATC would grant 

permission to resume the mission when the subject requested. The two typical ATC 

notifications were (1) “FASER123, Felker Tower, Traffic, a Cessna 172, three miles north of 

your position heading southeast will pass approximately two miles northeast of your position. 

Report traffic in sight;” and (2) “FASER99, Blackstone Tower, Traffic, UH-60, two point five 

miles southwest, low altitude, headed your direction, NO RADIO. Circle within visual line of sight 

at low altitude. Advise traffic in sight” (Appendix D). Note that communication between the 

ATC Traffic 

Alerts 

TES Simulator 

Visual Scene 

ATC Screen 

sUAS MATLAB 

Simulation 
 13 

manned aircraft and the towers at Felker and Blackstone were not simulated. This resulted in 

no party-line communications that the subject could hear regarding other traffic in the area.

If the subject pilot called ATC to advise “traffic in sight,” the researcher in the ATC position 

would click on a button on the ATC control screen to indicate that the subject acknowledged 

traffic. The mission elapsed time for that event was then recorded into the data file. At that 

point, if the subject deviated his sUA from the planned mission path, he would call MC to advise 

of this deviation due to traffic and then subsequently to request directions to resume the 

mission. 

2.4.1.3 Handling sUAS Crashes. Procedures were set in place at the ATC control station to 

remedy sUAS crashes. The following details those procedures: 

 Crash prior to reaching waypoint #5 – restart that simulation run 

 Crash twice before reaching waypoint #5 – keep data and proceed to the next run 

 Data was kept from runs that terminated in a crash with notation of the crash location 

 All data for all runs, including ones that were restarted due to sUAS crashes, were saved 

2.4.2 Mission Control Position 

A second researcher was seated above and behind the subject position. This researcher 

acted as the MC specialist and read the scripts (Appendix E for Surry Nuclear Power Plant 

Scripts and Appendix F for Fort Pickett Scripts) which directed the subject during the mission 

scenario. In each scenario, the subject was instructed to contact MC, once the sUA was 

airborne and after the initial calls to ATC, to initiate the pre-coordinated mission route and to get 

directions to proceed from waypoint-to-waypoint. The mission was pre-coordinated between the 

subject and MC before the mission began. This pre-coordination included identifying the seven 

waypoint locations to the subject by showing them on a paper map and pointing them out in the 

visual scene. The subject was expected to loiter his sUA at each waypoint for data collection by 

MC. The subject was directed by MC to have his sUA proceed to each waypoint and to report 

established at each successive location. After loitering for 60 seconds (as manually timed by 

MC using a stopwatch), the MC instructed the subject to proceed to the next waypoint in 

sequence. After loitering at waypoint number Seven for 60 seconds, the MC specialist informed 

the subject that the mission was terminated after all the necessary data were collected, and 

would inform the subject to report “on the ground” to ATC. Let it be noted that subjects were 

instructed, in the training, to return to base and loiter to mimic on the ground. 

2.4.2.1 After the Subject was Notified about Other Aircraft. If the subject pilot deviated his 

sUA from the planned mission route due to other aircraft in the vicinity, the subject contacted 

MC to advise of the deviation and to request further instructions. When this occurred, MC 

determined if the subject had been at the last reported waypoint long enough to proceed to the 

next waypoint. If not, MC made the determination for the subject to return to his last waypoint to 

continue collecting data. To resume the mission, the MC specialist instructed FASER123 or 

FASER99 to “proceed to waypoint (#) [i.e., the next waypoint in sequence] and report 

established.”

2.4.2.2 Observing. The researcher serving as the MC specialist conducted observations and 

logged the subject’s activities during each scenario. Notes were taken concerning anything that 

the observer considered relevant to the experiment goals and hypotheses, including 

observations related to the subject’s situation awareness. Subject reactions to intruder aircraft 

were also logged, including whether or not the subject notified ATC when traffic was visually 

acquired, whether the traffic had been announced by ATC or not. The MC made no comments 

to, nor answered any questions for, the subject concerning his performance in conducting the 

mission, which is standard experimental protocol. Questions formatted from these notes were 
 14 

later asked of the subject during debriefings after each run, following the completion of the onscreen questionnaires. 

2.5 Subject Communication with ATC and MC 

Subjects called ATC to get approval to start the flight and contacted ATC to terminate the 

mission scenario when the sUA had arrived back on the starting point. The subject only had the 

take-off script and could choose to read it for the initial call for each mission (§2.7.1.1 and 

§2.7.1.2) prior to launching. During the remainder of each flight, the subject acknowledged and 

responded to ATC directions. All other communications by the subject were either responding 

to commands and directions, or individual subject decisions to initiate radio contact. The 

subjects were not provided a copy of the script showing the traffic types, paths, and times that 

traffic would appear. 

2.5.1 Pilot Requests for Takeoff and Landing 

At the Surry Nuclear Power Plant, subjects requested clearance for takeoff by contacting 

ATC with a notification of intention and then once airborne they indicated that they were 

airborne and would “remain within 400 yards of Surry Nuclear Power Station at or below 400 

feet.” As for the Ft. Picket SAR scenarios, subjects requested clearance for takeoff by 

contacting ATC at which point Blackstone Tower would grant permission for takeoff. Once the 

mission was completed, subjects would contact ATC when they were back at the takeoff/landing 

point for mission termination. 

2.5.2 Notification of Traffic in Sight 

After being notified by ATC of other aircraft, the subject had the option to call back 

reporting that the traffic was in sight to ATC. As mentioned above for the Surry Nuclear Power 

Plant inspection scenarios, the subject pilot had to stay in contact with FAF Tower for flight 

advisories concerning other aircraft around the Surry Nuclear Power Plant operation area when 

the sUA was in Class D airspace. However, because the sUA would be flying in and out of 

Class D airspace at Surry Nuclear Power Plant, the subject pilot was not required during this 

experiment to notify ATC when the vehicle entered or departed this Class D airspace. For the 

SAR scenario in BKT Class D airspace, the sUAS unit had to remain in contact with ATC during 

the course of the operation. 

If the subject had deviated from the planned route, the subject should also have 

contacted MC. Once the subject wanted to resume his planned mission, the subject should 

have contacted MC again to inquire which waypoint to proceed to (as mentioned in §2.4.2.1). 

2.6 Experiment Design 

The simulation study employed the use of a within-subjects experimental design. Each 

subject was exposed to three different display configurations under two different scenarios in 

random ordering. 

2.6.1 Independent Variables 

The simulation study had three different GCS display configurations for sUAS as an 

independent variable. The treatments were blocked according to display type and randomized 

in order shown for each subject. The following are the display configurations studied: 

 Visual Line-of-Sight only (VLOS) 

 VLOS + Primary Flight Display (PFD) 

 VLOS + PFD + Moving Map (Map) 
 15 

2.6.1.1 VLOS. This was simulated solely on the wide-angle display in the simulator (§2.2.1) 

without the use of any head-down displays. Under this display configuration, the subject had to 

fly the FASER, his sUAS, manually on its mission using only VLOS operations for navigation 

and avoidance of obstacles and other aircraft. 

2.6.1.2 VLOS + PFD (PFD). Under this display configuration, the subject manually flew the sUA 

using VLOS operations for navigation and avoidance of obstacles and other aircraft, while 

having access to attitude, altitude, airspeed, and heading information displayed on the GCS 

laptop computer’s flat-panel screen (Figure 7 below). 

Figure 7 – PFD 

2.6.1.3 VLOS + PFD + Moving Map (Map). Under this display configuration, the subject 

manually flew the sUA using VLOS operations for navigation and avoidance of obstacles and 

other aircraft, while having access to attitude, altitude, airspeed, and heading information that 

were displayed on the GCS laptop computer’s flat-panel screen. In addition, a moving map 

display (Figure 8 on page 16) was included in the display configuration that took advantage of 

the GPS capability on the sUA so that the subject could follow the vehicle ground track on a 

modified, commercially-available map-type horizontal situation display, also shown on the GCS 

laptop screen above the PFD. This moving map display allowed the subject to confirm the 

actual location of the vehicle and its direction of flight over the ground during the mission. 

2.6.2 Organization of Independent Variables 

The order of the display sets, for this experiment, was randomized for each test subject. Tables 

representing the run order for each test subject can be found in Appendix G. The three display 

configurations – VLOS, PFD, and Map – were blocked. This means that for all runs across the 

9 subjects, each subject saw a particular display configuration for a practice run and three data 

runs before moving on to the next display configuration (Figure 9 on page 17). Before the first 

practice run for the first display configuration, each subject was able to fly the sUA around the 

Fort Pickett area for 10 minutes in order to become comfortable with the manual controller and 

the sUA flight dynamics. 

Airspeed Altitude

Heading

Attitude
 16 

Figure 8 – Moving Map 

2.6.3 Dependent Variables 

The dependent variables of the simulation study included: 

 sUA flight path and attitude 

 Obstacle collisions 

 ATC and MC communications 

 sUAS pilot situation awareness 

 System controllability 

 Workload 

2.6.3.1 sUA Flight Path and Attitude: The path the subject took to each waypoint and the sUA 

attitude and altitude information were recorded as the subject flew and loitered over each 

waypoint. Subjects were told to position the waypoint at the center of the loiter circle. 

2.6.3.2 Obstacle Collisions. If the subject got within 50 ft of an obstacle (building, power line, 

etc.), this was recorded as a collision although the subject was not notified of the collision and 

the simulation continued. However, subjects were briefed during the training that if they were 

within 50 ft of an object, it would be considered a collision. Although the FAA has no clearance 

requirements for sUAS, a 50 ft lateral distance from obstacles was required in this experiment 

so that subjects had to maintain both lateral and vertical clearances from objects and the 

ground. 

sUAS 
 17 

Figure 9 – Experiment Design Example 

Note: Each subject had 1 Introduction Flight, 3 Practice Runs, and 9 Data Runs 

for a total of 13 Runs. R# is sequential count of these runs. 

2.6.3.3 ATC and MC Communications. The subject’s ability to comply with, and respond to, 

ATC and MC commands in a timely manner was noted by the researchers acting as ATC and 

MC. 

2.6.3.4 sUAS Pilot Situation Awareness. At the end of each run, subjects answered six 

situation awareness questions, four of which were the same for every run and two random 

questions. The four questions always asked were: 

1. What percentage of the time did you lose visual line-of-sight of your aircraft? 

2. How well did you maintain the desired altitude and heading of the aircraft? 

3. How well did you resume the intended flight path after an obstacle? 

4. How many other aircraft did you notice in this scenario run? 

The two random questions were selected from the following: 

1. How well did you go from one loiter point to the next? 

2. What is the furthest distance (in yards) that your aircraft traveled in relation to your 

standing point? 

3. At what level of comfort was it to maneuver your aircraft to avoid obstacles (given the 

information on your Ground Control Station)? 

4. What percentage of the time did you deviate away from the loiter points (not including 

obstacles)? 
 18 

5. Within what time frame (in seconds) did it take you to reply back to Air Traffic Control 

(ATC) commands? 

6. What is the closest distance (in yards) that your aircraft came to within another aircraft? 

7. On average, how many times did ATC have to repeat a certain command? 

8. What was your starting altitude? 

9. What was your heading at the start of this scenario run? 

2.6.3.5 System Acceptability and Controllability. Questionnaires were given to the subject, 

both in an electronic-version and in a paper-version, in order to evaluate the acceptability and 

controllability of the system as a whole; the system was defined as the TES simulator, the handheld control unit, the displays, and the sUA. The questionnaires included a modified CooperHarper (CH) Rating, a GCS display questionnaire, and a final questionnaire. The following 

explain the three different questionnaires and when they were administered to the subject. 

sUAS Pilot Modified CH Rating: At the end of each run, subjects completed an electronic 

version of the modified CH rating (Figure 10 on page 19) (Cooper & Harper, 1969; Harper & 

Cooper, 1986; Trujillo, 2009b). 

sUAS Pilot GCS Display Questionnaire: Once the subjects completed the three data runs for a 

particular display configuration, they completed a GCS Display Questionnaire (Appendix H). 

This set of questions subjectively evaluated the subject’s thoughts in regards to the layout of the 

GCS display, in addition to asking how well the information presented on the GCS warned the 

subject of any upcoming obstacles. The questions also aimed at exploring the subject’s 

thoughts on any information that was needed or missing on the GCS display. 

sUAS Pilot Final Questionnaire: At the end of all the data runs, subjects completed the Final 

Questionnaire (Appendix I), which was administered during the debrief at the end of the 

experiment. This set of questions sought the subject’s evaluation of all the runs from the 

beginning of the experiment day to the end. Questions that were asked involved ranking the 

display treatments in order of preference and how well the subject felt he performed throughout 

the day and whether or not strobe lights help in maintaining VLOS during daylight operations. In 

addition to these questions, additional space on the paper was provided for any additional 

comments the subject wished to share. 

2.6.3.6 Workload. Subjects completed an electronic version of the NASA-Task Load Index 

(TLX) (Figure 11 on page 20) (Byers, Bittner, & Hill, 1989; Hart & Staveland, 1988; Trujillo, 

2009a) at the end of each run. The NASA-TLX is a subjective evaluation of the subject’s 

workload. The evaluation bases its scores on six criteria, which include mental demand, 

physical demand, temporal demand, performance, effort, and frustration level. 

2.7 Procedure 

Upon arriving at the testing location within the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center, each subject went through three phases, 

which included: (1) the training and briefing session, (2) the data collection runs in the TES lab, 

and (3) the debriefing session. The following sub-sections explain these three phases in further 

detail. Pilot subjects were run individually across a one-day period for 8 hours. 

2.7.1 Briefing and Training Session 

The first phase of the day consisted of a briefing and training session. Upon arrival at the 

testing facility, the subject was escorted to a conference room where his briefing took place. 

During the briefing session, the researcher used the experimenter’s instructions sheet/checklist 

(Appendix J) as a guide and provided each subject with an overview and an explanation of the 
 19 

Figure 10 – Electronic Version of the Modified CH Rating 

with Ratiangs Available from “Is adequate performance attainable with a tolerable pilot 

workload?” Answered “No” 

experiment. First, the subject was introduced to the informed consent form (Appendix K) and 

the privacy act notice (Appendix L). Both forms were explained to the subject in detail by the 

researcher and the subject was asked if he had any questions or concerns. After those two 

forms were signed, the researcher continued with the briefing session and provided an overview 

of the experiment, which covered the background, the purpose, the general procedure, the 

simulation environment, the communications standards along with a briefing describing the role 

of ATC and MC, the various experiment runs along with the tasks involved and the descriptions 

of the scenarios and locations of those scenarios, and the questionnaires. 

Once the overview of the experiment was covered and any questions, comments, or 

concerns were resolved, the subject was taken to the TES facility to continue with the training 

process and to begin data collection. Upon arriving at the TES, each subject was introduced to 

the simulation set up along with a briefing regarding the hand-held control unit. This was 

followed by a familiarization practice run to give the subject the opportunity to become familiar 

with the intricate behavior of the simulation (e.g., how the aircraft responds to the control inputs) 

and the hand-held control unit; the subject was given as much time as he needed to become 

comfortable with the environment. In addition, the subject answered the on-screen 

questionnaires (i.e., the CH rating, the NASA TLX, and the situation awareness questions) to 

become familiar with the touch screen process. 
 20 

Figure 11 – Electronic Version of the NASA-TLX 

When the subject was comfortable flying the simulation and comfortable with the controls, he 

had the chance to ask any questions before proceeding with the data collection. Each display 

treatment consisted of three runs, which were blocked and randomized for each subject 

(§2.6.2), in addition to a practice run given prior to the data collection runs; each subject was 

encouraged to ask questions during the practice run. Beginning with the second run, each 

subject was given a paper map, either of the Surry Nuclear Power Plant (Appendix B) or of Fort 

Pickett (Appendix C), with the waypoints established along a track to be flown in addition to a 

script with the initial radio calls that were to be made to ATC before the run. The waypoints on 

the paper map were described by the researcher and compared to the view on the TES screen 

to the subject. Each subject was instructed to contact ATC when ready to launch and to read 

the initial radio call. There were separate initial radio calls for each of the two scenario 

locations; one was for the Blackstone AAF in which the flight was located on the airfield, and the 

other one was for the Surry Nuclear Power Plant in which the flight was located off of the 

airfield. Visual Flight Rules (VFR) operations on the airfield require direct ATC clearance and 

instructions, which require a slightly different interaction with ATC in terms of communications. 

In addition, each subject was also instructed to contact MC once airborne. The following scripts 

dictate the initial radio calls that each subject was to read. 

2.7.1.1 Surry Nuclear Power Plant Initial Radio Call. 

Pilot: “Felker Tower, FASER123”
 21 

(ATC reply to go ahead) 

Pilot: “FASER123 is a small UAS at the Surry Nuclear Power Station by Hog Island. We 

will be conducting an inspection of the power plant, remaining within 400 yards of the facility, at 

or below 400 feet for approximately one hour, becoming airborne in about five minutes.”

2.7.1.2 Fort Pickett (Blackstone AAF) Initial Radio Call. 

Pilot: “Blackstone Tower, FASER99”

(ATC reply to go ahead) 

Pilot: “Blackstone Tower, FASER99 is a state police small unmanned aircraft unit 

responding to the tornado emergency at the lumber yard on the airfield. We have a missing 

person from this site and would like to reposition to a point on the airfield to launch a search and 

rescue effort. We would like to fly at or below 400 feet over the wooded areas around the 

airfield. We will operate visual line-of-sight within 400 yards of the launch point at all times.”

2.7.2 Data Collection 

Once each subject was comfortable with the simulation and ready to proceed, the 

researcher followed the same procedure as was done in the practice run for that display set. 

The paper map at the GCS location was reviewed with the subject and the mission was 

explained. The subject was also told which location the scenario was based at so as to 

determine which initial radio call and what call sign was necessary to use, and the mission 

altitude – 250 ft for the Surry scenarios and 200 ft for the Blackstone scenarios. At the 

completion of each run, each subject had a set of questions to answer on the touch screen. 

The questions included a modified Cooper-Harper rating, the NASA-TLX workload question, 

and six situation awareness questions, four of which were the same for every run and two 

random questions. In addition, after each subject completed the three runs that made up the 

display set, the subject was given a paper GCS display questionnaire (Error! Reference 

source not found.) that elicited his thoughts about the display set configuration he just 

experienced. Afterwards, the subject was given a break if desired; this was also the case for 

anytime during the experiment, not just after completing a display set. Next, the subject was 

given the second set of displays, which were randomized for each subject, and a practice run 

for that new display set would begin the process. Once the subject was comfortable to proceed, 

the researcher followed the same procedure as the practice run for that display as previously 

used. Following the completion of the second set of displays and all questionnaires were 

answered, the subject was given an hour lunch break. Upon returning from lunch, the subject 

was introduced to the final display set configuration beginning with a practice run of that display 

configuration. The researcher followed the same procedure as the first and second display set 

configurations. At the end of the day, once all three display sets were completed and all 

questionnaires were answered, the subject was debriefied. 

2.7.3 Debriefing Session 

The final phase of the day consisted of a debriefing session in which each subject was taken 

to a conference room outside of the simulation environment and given two additional 

questionnaires: (1) the final/exit questionnaire (Error! Reference source not found.), which 

elicited their thoughts regarding the simulation and the GCS user-interface displays for the 

entire day, and (2) a background questionnaire (Appendix A) that followed the final/exit 

questionnaire. Upon completion of those two questionnaires, subjects had the opportunity to 

discuss their thoughts about the simulation, the GCS displays, and anything else the subject 

had in mind. 
 22 

2.8 Hypotheses 

The following hypotheses were tested: 

Hypothesis 1: The sUAS simulator will provide a valid representation of flying a sUAS in 

VLOS operations. 

Hypothesis 2: The sUAS pilot will effectively operate the unmanned aircraft from its GCS 

while avoiding simulated ground-based obstacles that present the potential 

for conflict. 

Hypothesis 3: GCS voice communications with ATC in a simulated Class D airspace 

operational environment will be sufficient to avoid manned aircraft. 

Hypothesis 4: No human system integration deficiencies that could hinder initial integration 

of sUAS VLOS mission, within Class D airspace, will be identified. 

Hypothesis 5: The PFD display will be required for the pilot to be able to adhere to ATC 

and MC commands. 

Hypothesis 6: The Map display will be preferred. 

3 Results 

The below data analyses were done with IBM SPSS Statistics version 22 (IBM, 2013). A 

Kruskal-Wallis H one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for CH handling qualities 

ratings and display rankings. The rest of the analyses consisted of ANOVAs. Significance for 

all tests was set at p≤0.05. Lastly, any error bars present in a graph indicate one standard error 

of the mean (SE). 

3.1 Mission 

In general, subjects had no significant issues flying the simulated sUA. Their overall time for 

each run was fairly consistent, with the run time using just VLOS (690 seconds (sec)) being 

slightly less than with either the PFD (741 sec) or Map (745 sec) display conditions 

(F(2,532)=32.17; p≤0.001). The layout of the displays was adequate, with subjects preferring 

more information being available (F(2,23)=13.05; p≤0.001) (Figure 12 on page 23). However, 

most subjects did indicate that the TES resolution and the controllability of the simulated sUA 

resulted in some decrease in situation awareness and increase in workload. 

3.1.1 Lateral Errors at Waypoints 

Once the subjects arrived at a waypoint to loiter for 1 minute (min), the area of the box they 

circled in was calculated by taking the closest and farthest latitude and longitude points from the 

subject location. The number of loiter points at the waypoints only varied slightly by subject 

indicating that the loiter times at each waypoint were consistently in the 1 min range for all 

subjects. The loiter area was the smallest for the VLOS condition and the largest for the Map 

display (F(2,527)=72.23; p≤0.001) (Table 3 on page 23). The lateral root mean square (RMS) 

error from the center of the box to the waypoint varied slightly, although not statistically 

significant, by waypoint number where the error essentially decreased with increasing time in 

the run except for the last waypoint. This may indicate that being able to judge distance in the 

TES simulator was harder to do accurately closer to the eye point. For display condition, the 

Map and the PFD displays had more waypoints in the box than the VLOS display condition 

(F(2,527)=4.44; p=0.012) although subjects were not that accurate in loitering over the waypoint, 

even with the Map display available (Figure 13 on page 24). 
 23 

Figure 12 – Display Layout and GCS Realism by Display Configuration 

Table 3 – Loiter Area by Display Condition 

Display Configuration Loiter Area (ft2

) ± 1 SE 

VLOS 497.10 ± 11.7 

PFD 641.37 ± 16.5 

Map 735.61 ± 14.5 

3.1.2 Altitude Errors 

With regards to maintaining the prescribed altitude – 250 ft for scenarios 1-3 and 200 ft for 

scenarios 4-6 – a similar pattern emerged. In general, the average altitude was slightly below 

the prescribed altitude with the VLOS altitude being the lowest and the Map display condition 

being slightly less negative (F(2,544)=31.62; p≤0.001) (Figure 14 on page 24) indicating that the 

altitude information on the PFD was useful for maintaining the prescribed altitude. This pattern 

also held at each individual waypoint (F(2,488)=18.36; p≤0.001) (Figure 14 on page 24) although 

the waypoint altitude error becomes more negative at the later waypoints (Figure 15 on page 

25). The overall altitude error also decreased with more runs (F(8,531)=2.20; p=0.026) (Figure 16 

on page 25) indicating a learning effect. 

Interestingly, for the altitude errors but not for the lateral errors, the pilot license of the 

subject was significant for maintaining the prescribed altitude; although with so few subjects, 

especially in the categories of private pilot and no pilot license (RC pilot only) (see §2.1), the 

following results should be taken with a degree of caution. ATP and those that were just RC 

pilots were able to better maintain the prescribed altitude during the data runs depending on 

display configuration (F(4,544)=2.92; p=0.021) (Figure 17 on page 26) and at the individual 

waypoints (F(2,542)=10.37; p=0.37) (Table 4 on page 26). ATP license holders are accustomed to 

Display Configuration

VLOS PFD Map

How well was the layout of the display?

(0=Not Very Well; 5=Very Well)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Layout 

Overall, understanding/navigating the GCS was ...

(0=Not Very Realistic; 100=Very Realistic)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Realism 
 24 

Figure 13 – Percentage of Waypoints in Loiter Area Box by Display Configuration 

Figure 14 – Altitude Error by Display Configuration 

Display Configuration

VLOS PFD Map

% Waypoint in Box

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes

No

Display Configuration

VLOS PFD Map

Altitude Error (ft)

-60

-40

-20

0

20

Overall Altitude Error 

Wpt Altitude Error 
 25 

Figure 15 – Altitude Error by Waypoint 

Figure 16 – Overall Altitude Error by Run 

Waypoint

1234567

Altitude Error (ft)

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

Run

123456789

Overall Altitude Error (ft)

-60

-40

-20

0

20
 26 

Figure 17 – Overall Altitude Error by Subject License Type and Display Configuration 

Table 4 – Ability to Maintain Altitude at Waypoints by Subject License Type 

Subject License Type Waypoint Altitude Error ± SE (ft) 

ATP -11.98 ± 3.71 

Private -45.86 ± 5.82 

None (RC Pilot Only) -13.88 ± 2.76 

maintaining tighter ranges on altitude than those with private pilot licenses, especially with 

altitude information provided on the PFD and Map display configurations. The RC pilot only 

subjects are also experienced in judging altitude of their sUA, especially using only visual cues. 

3.1.3 Subjective Mission Ratings 

Overall, subjects felt that they were able to “maintain the desired altitude and heading of the 

aircraft” the best with more information (F(6,75)=4.00; p=0.022) (Table 5 on page 27) with a slight 

increase in their ratings as more runs were accomplished (F(8,56)=2.18; p=0.042) (Figure 18 on 

page 27). This was also reflected in the CH ratings where the CH ratings decreased slightly as 

more runs were accomplished (F(8,57)=2.11; p=0.049) (Figure 19 on page 28). As for workload, 

the additional displays did not appreciably increase workload although with the displays, 

performance was better (F(2,76)=3.88; p=0.025) (Table 6 on page 28). For the overall workload 

rating, the workload did slightly decrease with more runs (F(8,57)=3.84; p=0.001) (Figure 20 on 

page 29) again indicating a small learning effect. Lastly, subjects preferred having the Map 

display condition over the PFD and VLOS display conditions (F(8,24)=13.58; p≤0.001) (Figure 21 

on page 29). 

Subject License Type

ATP Private None (RC Pilot Only)

Overall Altitude Error (ft)

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

VLOS

PFD

Map
 27 

Table 5 – Ability to Maintain Altitude and Heading by Display Condition 

Display 

Configuration 

How well did you maintain the desired 

aircraft altitude and heading? 

(0=Not Very Well; 100=Very Well) ± 1 SE 

VLOS 41 ± 3.8 

PFD 51 ± 3.8 

Map 56 ± 4.5 

Figure 18 – Ability to Maintain Altitude and Heading by Run 

3.1.4 Collisions 

The number of collisions was significantly different across scenarios (F(5,63)=17.11; p≤0.001) with 

all of the collisions occurring in the scenarios at the Surry Nuclear Power Plant (Figure 22 on 

page 30). This is most likely because subjects typically flew below the prescribed altitude (250 

ft for these scenarios) and these scenarios did have some tall structures in the flight path. Not 

surprisingly, the number of collisions did decrease significantly with the altitude information 

available on the PFD and Map display conditions (F(8,63)=6.05; p≤0.001) (Figure 23 on page 30). 

The high number of collisions in scenario 1 most likely was due to the first waypoint. This 

waypoint was a tall tower not very far away from the takeoff point. Therefore, subjects may not 

have taken a vehicle path to this waypoint that allowed for a sufficient amount of altitude to be 

gained before the vehicle approached the tower and thus, the experiment may have recorded a 

vehicle collision with the tower several times as it was loitering over it. Recall that a collision 

was recorded if the sUA passed within 50 feet of an obstacle. In any case, subjects were not 

always able to avoid this tower and some of the other obstacles farther away from the takeoff 

point in the more diverse terrain scenarios. 

Run

123456789

How well did you maintain the

desired altitude and heading of the aircraft?

(0=Not Very Well; 100=Very Well)

0

20

40

60

80

100
 28 

Figure 19 – CH Rating by Run Boxplot 

Table 6 – Performance by Display Condition 

Display 

Configuration

Performance 

(0=Poor; 100=Good) ± 1 SE

VLOS 51 ± 3.7 

PFD 61 ± 4.2 

Map 66 ± 3.4 

Run

123456789

CH Rating

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Note: Red dotted line indicates average CH rating
 29 

Figure 20 – NASA-TLX Rating by Run 

Figure 21 – Display Ranking by Display Configuration Boxplot 

Run

123456789

NASA-TLX Rating

(0=low workload; 100=high workload)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Display Configuration

VLOS PFD Map

Rank

(1=Most Preferred; 3=Least Preferred)

0

1

2

3

4

Note: Red dotted line indicates average rank
 30 

Figure 22 – Number of Collisions by Scenario 

Figure 23 – Number of Collisions by Scenario and Display Configuration 

Scenario

123456

Number of Collisions

0

5

10

15

20

25

Surry Nuclear Power Plant Scenarios Fort Pickett Scenarios

Scenario

123456

Number of Collisions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

VLOS

PFD

Map

Surry Nuclear Power Plant Scenarios Fort Pickett Scenarios
 31 

3.1.5 Mission Tracks 

There were wide discrepancies in how close to a waypoint each subject loitered 

(F(8,526)=16.59; p≤0.01) (Figure 24 below) and how closely each maintained the given altitude 

(F(8,529)=13.88; p≤0.01) (Figure 25 on page 32). Also, the type of pilot’s license held by the 

subject (ATP, Private, none (RC pilot only)) influenced both the loiter area (F(4,485)=4.211; 

p≤0.01) (Figure 26 on page 32) and the loiter altitude held (§3.1.2 and Table 4); although a 

degree of caution must again be considered because of the low number of subjects. It is 

interesting to note that the loiter area for all license types the subjects held increased with 

additional displays. Furthermore, if the subject held an ATP license, the loiter area increased as 

more information was provided to them. 

Figure 24 – Loiter Area by Subject 

These differences in how the subjects flew the mission can also be seen in a subject’s mission 

tracks for each scenario. An example of these differences can be seen in Figure 27 on page 33 

and Figure 28 on page 33, which shows representative examples of the mission tracks of two 

different subject both flying scenario 1 with the Map display configuration. Appendix M contains 

the mission tracks for all subjects. While additional display information did help subjects to 

more accurately fly the mission, the wide variance in subject capability should be considered for 

the possible capabilities of potential sUAS operators. 

3.2 Maintaining VLOS 

At the end of the runs, subjects were asked the percentage of the time they lost VLOS for 

that particular run. VLOS for this experiment was defined to the subjects as 400 yards lateral 

distance and 400 feet in altitude; 

Subject

ABCDEFGH I

Loiter Area (ft2

)

0

200

400

600

800

1000
 32 

Figure 25 – Altitude Error by Subject 

Figure 26 – Loiter Area by Subject License Type and Display Configuration 

Subject

ABCDEFGH I

Altitude Error (ft)

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

Overall Altitude Error

Wpt Altitude Error

Subject License Type

ATP Private None (RC Pilot Only)

Loiter Area (ft2

)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

VLOS

PFD

Map
 33 

Figure 27 – Subject A Mission Track for Scenario 1, Run 3, Map Display Configuration 

Note: Red dotted box indicates visual-line-of-sight area from the eye point and the green 

horizontal line indicates the prescribed altitude. 

Figure 28 – Subject B Mission Track for Scenario 1, Run 13, Map Display Configuration 

Note: Red dotted box indicates visual-line-of-sight area from the eye point and the green 

horizontal line indicates the prescribed altitude. 
 34 

however, it is unclear from the subject responses whether they took this definition into 

consideration or whether they used a more literal definition of losing visual contact with their 

sUA at whatever distance that occurred. 

Subjects reported that they lost VLOS the least with the VLOS display condition 

(F(2,75)=11.35; p≤0.001) (Table 7 below) although the subject mission tracks indicate that they 

flew outside of 400 yards (yds) and 400 ft the most often with the VLOS display condition 

(Appendix M). This suggests that subjects were using a literal interpretation of VLOS (i.e., 

losing actual visual contact with their sUA) in answering this question. With additional display 

information, the subjects were comfortable occasionally losing VLOS of the sUA. This pattern 

held when looking at the lateral distance and altitude at which the subjects flew the sUA (§3.2.1 

and §3.2.2). 

Table 7 – Subject Reported Percentage of Time VLOS is Lost by Display 

Display Subject Reported Percentage 

of Time VLOS is Lost ± 1 SE 

VLOS 5 ± 1 

PFD 25 ± 5 

Map 37 ± 7 

3.2.1 Lateral Distance 

Lateral BVR distance was prescribed to be 400 yds (1200 ft) and greater from the eye point. 

All waypoints were located within 400 yds. The maximum distance from the eye point did 

increase with more runs (F(8,531)=4.12; p≤0.001) (Figure 29 below), again indicating a learning 

effect for flying the sUAS. The distance also increased with additional display information 

(F(2,532)=219.76; p≤0.001) (Figure 30 on page 35) indicating that with the additional 

Figure 29 – Maximum Lateral Distance from Eye Point Average by Run 

Run

123456789

Lateral Distance (ft)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600
 35 

Figure 30 – Lateral Distance and Points BVR from Eye Point by Display Configuration 

information, subjects were more confident in knowing the location and attitude of the sUA. 

There was also a big jump in distance with the inclusion of the Map display, which might also 

indicate that the waypoints may have been out farther than subjects originally thought. Not 

surprisingly, less time was spent BVR with the VLOS and PFD displays than with the Map 

display (F(2,532)=288.63; p≤0.001) (Figure 30 above) because without the Map display, subjects 

were more apt to fly closer to their eye point where they could better determine the relative 

heading of their sUA to the loiter point. This pattern also held when the subjects responded to 

the question regarding the “furthest distance (in yards) that your aircraft traveled in relation to 

your standing point?” (F(2,12)=4.11; p=0.044) (Figure 30 above). With the additional display 

information, the subjects thought they went farther from the eye point. 

3.2.2 Altitude 

Altitude BVR was defined as being higher than 400 ft. As with the lateral distance, the amount 

of time spent above 400 ft was greatest with the Map display (Figure 31 on page 36) than with 

the PFD or VLOS display conditions (F2,532=5.95; p=0.003). This pattern also held when looking 

at the maximum altitude (Figure 31 on page 36), where the maximum altitude reached was 

higher for the PFD and Map displays than for the VLOS display condition (F(2,532)=5.62; 

p=0.004). The VLOS display condition does not provide altitude information and overall 

provides the least amount of information about the attitude and position of the aircraft so the 

altitudes were the lowest, whereas the Map display condition provides more sUA positional 

information that is useful if the vehicle goes BVR. Some subjects also suggested the use of an 

audible tone (or alert) that may be useful in advising the pilot that the sUA in not maintaining the 

desired altitude (high pitch for climbing above; low pitch for descending below). 

Display Configuration

VLOS PFD Map

Lateral Distance (ft)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Averaged Measured Maximum Lateral Distance

Subjective furthest distance your UA traveled

Points BVR

0

200

400

600

800
 36 

Figure 31 – Maximum Altitude and Points Above 400 ft Averaged by Display Configuration 

3.3 Interaction with ATC and Manned Aircraft 

3.3.1 Interaction with Manned Aircraft 

Manned aircraft flew within visual range of the sUAS operator for each of the runs. In all 

cases, the manned aircraft flew in a straight line no closer than 0.25 nm. Also, the sound of the 

manned aircraft could be heard before it was visible. Some of the manned aircraft were 

announced by ATC while others were not. For those announced by ATC, subjects were asked 

to report back to ATC when the aircraft was within sight. 

At the end of the run, subjects were asked how many manned aircraft they noticed. This 

included the ones announced by ATC and those that were not. In general, subjects did not 

notice all the aircraft that flew within their line of sight and they missed more with the Map 

display condition (2(2)=9.59; p=0.009) (Figure 32 on page 37). However, the number of 

manned aircraft that subjects noticed may be tempered by subjects assuming that the vast 

majority of these aircraft were far enough away such that they could essentially ignore these 

manned aircraft and thus did not bother to look for these aircraft. The time it took a subject to 

notice an aircraft did not rise appreciably with the additional display information even though 

more aircraft were missed. 

Lastly, subjects felt that they were able to better avoid manned aircraft with more display 

information available to them (F(2,13)=4.98; p=0.025) (Table 8 on page 37). 

Display Configuration

VLOS PFD Map

Maximum Altitude (ft)

0

100

200

300

400

Number of Points Above 400 ft

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160
 37 

Figure 32 – Number of Aircraft Missed and Average Time to Spot Aircraft by Display 

Configuration 

Table 8 – Subjects’ Perceived Abillity to Avoid Manned Aircraft by Display 

Display 

Configuration 

Avoid Manned AC % 

(0=low; 100=high) ± 1 SE

VLOS 41 ± 9 

PFD 61 ± 16 

Map 79 ± 5 

With regards to spotting other traffic in the area, many subjects indicated that ADS-B 

(Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast) In (and/or other forms of traffic information 

such as TIS-B) may be helpful in providing the sUA pilot situation awareness of traffic in the 

area especially when using the PFD or Map displays. This is most likely due to the sUA pilot’s 

head down time when using these display configurations. 

3.3.2 Interaction with ATC and MC 

In general, subjects thought that they replied back to ATC fairly quickly (in a little over 4 sec) 

and they thought that ATC did not have to repeat their commands (only once was ATC asked to 

repeat itself). However, subjects did not always contact ATC or MC when asked to by the 

experiment protocol. Subjects did not always report that they were established at a waypoint to 

MC. Also, the initial contact with ATC or MC for granting takeoff or once airborne did not always 

occur. Furthermore, a great deal of the interactions with ATC contained non-standard verbiage, 

Display Configuration

VLOS PFD Map

Time to Indicate Manned Aircraft (sec)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Aircraft #1

Aircraft #2

Aircraft #3

Avg Time to Note All Aircraft

Number of Aircraft Missed

0

10

20

30

40

50

Aircraft Missed
 38 

especially if the sUAS pilot had limited time as pilot-in-command of a manned aircraft although 

this may be tempered by some of the non-standard verbiage ATC employed. 

4 Discussion 

This research aimed at evaluating the human system integration of a sUAS GCS and its 

pilot. The main objectives of this experiment were to validate the sUAS simulator/simulation, 

determine the ability of the sUAS to avoid obstacles while operating under VLOS conditions, 

determine whether the GCS met normal NAS operational requirements for pilot/ATC 

communications, and to identify any potential human system integration deficiencies that could 

hinder the integration of sUAS VLOS missions within uncontrolled and controlled airspace. To 

meet the objectives of this research experiment, nine male pilot subjects flew a FASER sUA 

model with a hand-held control unit in the TES lab using three different sets of display 

configurations, which consisted of the VLOS only display set, the PFD display set (VLOS + 

PFD), and the Map display set (VLOS + PFD + Moving Map). The subject’s mission was to 

successfully go from one waypoint to another to collect data at the Surry Nuclear Power Plant 

and at Fort Pickett Blackstone Army Airfield while safely avoiding other aircraft and obstacles 

under VLOS operations. There were 3 sets of runs for each display configuration set, which 

were blocked; however, the order of these display sets was randomized. 

4.1 Hypothesis 1: sUAS Simulator Realism 

The first hypothesis – the sUAS simulator will provide a valid representation of flying a sUAS 

in VLOS operations – is true. In general, the subjects were able to fly the sUA simulation in the 

TES although they reported some decrease in situation awareness and increase in workload 

compared to real-world sUAS flying. 

4.2 Hypothesis 2: Obstacle Avoidance 

The second hypothesis – the sUAS pilot will effectively operate the unmanned aircraft from 

its GCS while avoiding simulated ground-based obstacles that present the potential for conflict – 

is not true; however, the failure to confirm this hypothesis may have more to do with scenario 

development and visual scene realism. During this experiment, collisions only occurred for the 

Surry Nuclear Power Plant scenarios, especially for a particular scenario that required subjects 

to avoid a nearby tower while climbing to altitude. Accurately judging the vehicle position and 

the object heights in a two-dimensional display may have been the primary contributing factor to 

these collisions. 

4.3 Hypothesis 3: Manned-Aircraft Avoidance 

The third hypothesis – GCS voice communications with ATC in a simulated Class D 

airspace operational environment will be sufficient to avoid manned aircraft – is indeterminate 

for avoiding manned aircraft and for appropriate communication with ATC. Subjects avoided all 

manned aircraft but the paths of these aircraft did not bring them in much danger of colliding 

with the sUA. However, subjects were better able to see other aircraft when using the VLOS 

display configuration. Subjects did not report spotting several manned aircraft announced by 

ATC, although the subjects may not have been actively looking for the announced manned 

aircraft because none of them came within close proximity of their sUA, and the average time to 

indicate those manned-aircraft spotted was well over a minute. With regards to communicating 

with ATC, subjects did not always contact ATC when appropriate as directed to in the 

experiment protocol for the mission start. 
 39 

4.4 Hypothesis 4: Human System Integration Deficiencies 

The fourth hypothesis – no human system integration deficiencies that could hinder initial 

integration of sUAS VLOS mission, within Class D airspace, will be identified – is indeterminate. 

For the most part, subjects were able to complete the missions safely. However, some 

collisions did occur with ground structures as defined by the experiment protocol, and they did 

not always spot the manned aircraft in the vicinity nor did they always communicate with ATC as 

requested in the experiment protocol. Subjects also flew outside of visual-line-of-sight, as 

defined by the experiment protocol, on occasion although they may have maintained visual sight 

of the sUA past the distance defined by the experiment protocol. Subjects were also not able to 

always maintain the prescribed altitude. Their average altitude error was smaller with the Map 

display configuration; however, the subjects’ were more likely to go beyond visual range with the 

Map display configuration because of the positional information it afforded. 

4.5 Hypothesis 5: PFD Need 

The fifth hypothesis – the PFD display will be required to adhere to ATC and MC commands 

– is indeterminate for the ATC commands and for the MC commands. This experiment did not 

require many communications with ATC and MC where the presence of a PFD may affect 

command adherence. However, subjects did not always contact ATC for takeoff or once 

airborne as directed by the experiment protocol, nor did they always contact MC once 

established over a waypoint as directed by the experiment protocol. These communication 

deficiencies do not directly impact the need of a PFD for adherence to ATC and MC commands 

but these communication deficiencies may indicate that some training or clear expectations in 

this area would be beneficial. In any case, subjects were better able to fly the missions with the 

PFD and Map display conditions. With the PFD, they were more likely to loiter around the 

waypoint at the appropriate altitude. This suggests that the PFD may be beneficial for adhering 

to ATC altitude commands. 

4.6 Hypothesis 6: Map Display Configuration Preference 

The sixth hypothesis – the Map display will be preferred – is true. Subjects preferred having 

the Map display configuration. Furthermore, the map display configuration allowed the pilots to 

complete the mission objectives with less workload, at the expense of having better situation 

awareness of other aircraft, due to more head-down time observing the GCS displays. In any 

case, the subjects had far better situation awareness of the sUA position, altitude, airspeed and 

location over the ground and mission track using the Map display configuration. 

5 Conclusion 

sUA pilots for sUAS VLOS operations are able to better loiter over defined waypoints at a 

prescribed altitude with both a PFD and moving map display available to them. They have 

improved situation awareness of their vehicle in space, although their awareness of other 

aircraft in the area is diminished. ADS-B In (and/or other forms of traffic information such as 

TIS-B (Traffic Information Service – Broadcast)) may be helpful in remedying this. In order to 

alleviate the possibility of visually losing sight of their sUA while briefly heads down, strobe lights 

on the sUA may be helpful although some subjects indicated that they may not be very useful in 

bright daylight. 

6 Recommendations 

It appears from the conclusions above that the best way to integrate the type of scenarios 

used in this simulation into the NAS would be to provide the pilot with both a PFD and moving 
 40 

map display to fly the mission and to remain within the VLOS airspace (within 400 yds, at or 

below 400 ft. AGL) while an observer stands watch for other aircraft in the area and advises the 

pilot of the other aircraft’s location, altitude and direction of flight (Dolgov, Marshall, Davis, 

Wierzbanowski, & Hudon, 2012). This would require a two-person team. Additionally, an audio 

altitude alerting system and a depiction of traffic information on the moving map display could 

enhance the pilot’s situation awareness while flying the mission. 

Before the recommendation of including an observer becomes a requirement for sUAS 

VLOS operations, additional research into whether this would actually increase the safety of 

flight needs to be conducted. Furthermore, optimizing the presentation formats of the 

information on the PFD and moving map display needs to be investigated. The above 

experiment used standard manned aircraft displays. The unique flying environment of VLOS 

operations of sUAS may require a different presentation of the information in order to maximize 

its effectiveness. 

Lastly, many sUAS can fly both VLOS and BVR operations, sometimes within the same 

flight. Therefore, additional research should be conducted on sUAS BVR GCS operations in 

order to define the GCS requirements for sUAS. 
 41 

References 

Public Law 112-95 H.R. 658 (112th): FAA Modernation and Reform Act 2012, 112th Congress 

pp. 72-78 § 331-336 (2012). 

Byers, J. C., Bittner, A. C., & Hill, S. G. (1989). Traditional and Raw Task Load Index (TLX) 

Correlations: Are Paired Comparisons Necessary? Advances in Industrial Ergonomics 

and Safety, 481-485. 

Cooper, G. E., & Harper, R. P. (1969). The Use of Pilot Rating in the Evaluation of Aircraft 

Handling Qualities (pp. 52): AGARD. 

Corcoran, M. (2013, 24 May 2013 at 8:09am AEST). Drones Set for Commercial Take-Off. 

Retrieved December 27, 2013, from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-01/drones-setfor-large-scale-commercial-take-off/4546556

Dolgov, I., Marshall, D., Davis, D., Wierzbanowski, T., & Hudon, B. (2012). Final Report of the 

Evaluation of the Safety of Small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS) Operations in the 

National Airspace System (NAS) at Night (pp. 61). New Mexico State University: New 

Mexico State University. 

Federal Aviation Administration. (2012). Integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems into the 

National Airspace System: Concept of Operations, v2.0. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

Garcia, Z. (2013). What Flies When it Comes to Drone Laws Across the Globe. The Missouri 

Drone Journalism Program. Retrieved from The Missouri Drone Journalism Program 

website: http://www.missouridronejournalism.com/2013/04/what-flies-when-it-comes-todrone-laws-across-the-globe/

Harper, R. P., & Cooper, G. E. (1986). Handling Qualities and Pilot Evaluation (Wright Brothers 

Lecture in Aeronautics). Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 9(6), 515-529. 

Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of a NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results 

of Empirical and Theoretical Research. In P. S. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human 

Mental Workload (pp. 139-183). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. 

IBM. (2013). IBM SPSS Statistics Version 22 (Version 22.0.0.0): IBM. 

Jewell, J. (2010). 2010-2011 UAS Yearbook-UAS: The Global Perspective (8th ed.): Blyenburgh 

& Co. 

McAdaragh, R., Comstock, J. R., Ghatas, R., Burdette, D., & Trujillo, A. (2014). The Need for 

Research to Support the Expeditious Development of Standards, Guidelines and 

Procedures for the Integration of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems into the National 

Airspace System. (NASA/TM-2014-218253). NASA Langley Research Center: NASA. 

Murch, A. (2012, 26 August 2010). UAV Research Group. Retrieved December 2013, 2013, 

from http://www.uav.aem.umn.edu/

NASA. (n.d., February 22, 2013). UAS Inetgration in the NAS. Retrieved December 27, 2013, 

from http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/isrp/uas/research_activities.htm

Owens, D. B., Cox, D. E., & Morelli, E. A. (2006). Development of a Low-Cost Sub-Scale 

Aircraft for Flight Research: The FASER Project. AIAA Paper 2006-3306. Paper 

presented at the 25th AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement Technology and Ground Testing 

Conference, San Francisco, CA. 

PRI's The World. (2013). Civilian Companies Eye Big Potential for Domestic Drone Use. PRI's 

The World. Retrieved from PRI's The World website: http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-01-

24/civilian-companies-eye-big-potential-domestic-drone-use

RTCA. (2010). Terms of Reference: Special Committe (SC) 203 - Minimum Performance 

Standards for Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Revision 2. (RTCA Paper No. 065-10/PMC790). Retrieved from http://www.rtca.org/Files/Terms%20of%20Reference/SC203%20Terms%20of%20Reference%20-%20Rev.%202%20%20Apr%202010.pdf. 

RTCA. (2013). Operational and Functional Requirements and Safety Objectives. (DO-344). 
 42 

Trujillo, A. C. (2009a). How Electronic Questionnaire Formats Affect Scaled Responses. Paper 

presented at the 2009 (15th) International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, 

OH. 

Trujillo, A. C. (2009b). Paper to Electronic Questionnaires: Effects on Structured Questionnaire 

Forms. Paper presented at the HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA. 
 43 

Appendix A: Subject Background Questionnaire 

Pilot Background Questionnaire 

Subject #: _________________________ Date:

_________________________ 

Please fill in the blanks or circle the appropriate response 

1. What pilot certifications do you have? 

A) Private 

B) Commercial 

C) Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) 

D) None 

2. What pilot ratings do you have? 

A) SEL 

B) MEL 

C) Instrument 

D) CFII 

E) Helicopter 

F) None 

3. Top four aircraft you have flown (by hours) 

1. __________________, __________ Hours 

2. __________________, __________ Hours 

3. __________________, __________ Hours 

4. __________________, __________ Hours 

4. How many flight hours and years of experience do you have? 

__________ Flight Hours 

__________ Years 

5. Do you have experience flying in a mixed operations environment (unmanned aircraft 

and general/commercial aircraft in same airspace)? 

A) Yes 

B) No 
 44 

6. Have you had any experience operating an unmanned aircraft (or remotely controlled 

aircraft) before today? 

A) Yes 

B) No 

If yes, was your experience in a simulation environment (comparable to this experiment) 

or in real life? And how many hours/years? 

A) Simulation Environment: B) Real Life: 

_____________ Hours ______________ Hours 

_____________ Years ______________ Years 

7. What types of UAS have you flown? 

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________ 

8. What type of training, specific to UAS, did you receive prior to today? 

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________ 

9. Do you think that the training you received was sufficient to fly the UAS in today’s 

simulation? 

A) Yes 

B) No 

 
 45 

Appendix B: Surry Nuclear Power Plant Data Run Paper Maps 

Table B-1 – Eye Point, sUAS Starting Position, and Other Traffic for Scenario 1 

(Surry Nuclear Power Plant Scenario 1) 

Eye Point 

Latitude Longitude Altitude Heading 

37.163357 -76.697753 1.83 meters 22.5 

sUAS Starting Position 

Latitude Longitude Altitude Heading 

37.163543 -76.697622 12.19 meters 22.5 

Other Traffic Timing

Start Time (sec) End Time 

(sec) Velocity (kts) 

Other Traffic 1 120 240 150 

Other Traffic 2 310 457.540984 122 

Other Traffic 3 530 680 120 

Other Traffic Flight Paths

Latitude Longitude Altitude (ft) Heading 

Other Traffic 1 37.221 -76.6732 457.2 156 

Other Traffic 2 37.149 -76.6298 152.4 327 

Other Traffic 3 37.206 -76.7120 304.8 126 
 46 

Figure B-1: Map of Waypoints for Scenario 1 

(Surry Nuclear Power Plant Scenario 1) 

Figure B-2: Map of Other Aircraft Paths for Scenario 1 

(Surry Nuclear Power Plant Scenario 1) 

 
 47 

Table B-2 – Eye Point, sUAS Starting Position, and Other Traffic for Scenario 2 

(Surry Nuclear Power Plant Scenario 2) 

Eye Point 

Latitude Longitude Altitude Heading 

37.165294 -76.694769 12.19 meters 270 

sUAS Starting Position 

Latitude Longitude Altitude Heading 

37.165294 -76.694769 12.19 meters 270 

Other Traffic Timing

Start Time (sec) End Time 

(sec) Velocity (kts) 

Other Traffic 1 240 440 90 

Other Traffic Flight Paths

Latitude Longitude Altitude (ft) Heading 

Other Traffic 1 37.207 -76.6774 365.76 215 

Figure B-3: Map of Waypoints for Scenario 2 

(Surry Nuclear Power Plant Scenario 2) 
 48 

Figure B-4: Map of Other Aircraft Paths or Scenario 2 

(Surry Nuclear Power Plant Scenario 2) 

 
 49 

Table B-3 – Eye Point, sUAS Starting Position, and Other Traffic for Scenario 3 

(Surry Nuclear Power Plant Scenario 3) 

Eye Point 

Latitude Longitude Altitude Heading 

37.165594 -76.700203 1.83 meters 70 

sUAS Starting Position 

Latitude Longitude Altitude Heading 

37.165560 -76.699866 12.19 meters 70 

Other Traffic Timing

Start Time (sec) End Time 

(sec) Velocity (kts) 

Other Traffic 1 45 145 180 

Other Traffic 2 230 430 90 

Other Traffic 3 530 677.540984 122 

Other Traffic Flight Paths

Latitude Longitude Altitude (ft) Heading 

Other Traffic 1 37.146 -76.6519 609.60 310 

Other Traffic 2 37.161 -76.6454 213.36 294 

Other Traffic 3 37.146 -76.6519 304.80 310 

Figure B-5: Map of Waypoints for Scenario 3 

(Surry Nuclear Power Plant Scenario 3) 
 50 

Figure B-6: Map of Other Aircraft Paths for Scenario 3 

(Surry Nuclear Power Plant Scenario 3) 

 
 51 

Appendix C: Fort Pickett Data Run Paper Maps 

Table C-1 – Eye Point, sUAS Starting Position, and Other Traffic for Scenario 4 

(Fort Pickett Blackstone Army Airfield Scenario 1) 

Eye Point 

Latitude Longitude Altitude Heading 

37.0722148 -77.94992420 1.83 meters 90 

sUAS Starting Position 

Latitude Longitude Altitude Heading 

37.072475 -77.9497650 12.19 meters 90 

Other Traffic Timing

Start Time (sec) End Time 

(sec) Velocity (kts) 

Other Traffic 1 180 380 90 

Other Traffic Flight Paths

Latitude Longitude Altitude (ft) Heading 

Other Traffic 1 37.102 -77.9121 182.88 214 

Figure C-1: Map of Waypoints for Scenario 4 

(Fort Pickett Blackstone Army Airfield Scenario 1) 
 52 

Figure C-2: Map of Other Aircraft Paths for Scenario 4 

(Fort Pickett Blackstone Army Airfield Scenario 1) 

 
 53 

Table C-2 – Eye Point, sUAS Starting Position, and Other Traffic for Scenario 5 

(Fort Pickett Blackstone Army Airfield Scenario 2) 

Eye Point 

Latitude Longitude Altitude Heading 

37.0734197 -77.96291721 4.1 meters 280 

sUAS Starting Position 

Latitude Longitude Altitude Heading 

37.073314 -77.9632051 12.19 meters 280 

Other Traffic Timing

Start Time (sec) End Time 

(sec) Velocity (kts) 

Other Traffic 1 20 167.540984 122 

Other Traffic 2 220 320 180 

Other Traffic 3 420 567.540984 122 

Other Traffic 4 620 820 90 

Other Traffic Flight Paths

Latitude Longitude Altitude (ft) Heading 

Other Traffic 1 37.107 -78.0004 213.36 160 

Other Traffic 2 37.075 -77.9107 609.60 270 

Other Traffic 3 37.107 -78.0004 213.36 160 

Other Traffic 4 37.049 -78.0062 243.84 43 
 54 

Figure C-3: Map of Waypoints for Scenario 5 

(Fort Pickett Blackstone Army Airfield Scenario 2) 

Figure C-4: Map of Other Aircraft Paths for Scenario 5 

(Fort Pickett Blackstone Army Airfield Scenario 2) 

 
 55 

Table C-3 – Eye Point, sUAS Starting Position, and Other Traffic for Scenario 6 

(Fort Pickett Blackstone Army Airfield Scenario 3) 

Eye Point 

Latitude Longitude Altitude Heading 

37.0663518 -77.95896875 3 meters 85 

sUAS Starting Position 

Latitude Longitude Altitude Heading 

37.066341 -77.9586939 12.19 meters 85 

Other Traffic Timing

Start Time (sec) End Time 

(sec) Velocity (kts) 

Other Traffic 1 60 160 180 

Other Traffic 2 250 397.540984 122 

Other Traffic 3 500 700 90 

Other Traffic Flight Paths

Latitude Longitude Altitude (ft) Heading 

Other Traffic 1 37.089 -77.9076 152.4 215 

Other Traffic 2 37.093 -77.9994 152.4 125 

Other Traffic 3 37.070 -77.9562 152.4 35 

Figure C-5: Map of Waypoints for Scenario 6 

(Fort Pickett Blackstone Army Airfield Scenario 3) 
 56 

Figure C-6: Map of Other Aircraft Paths for Scenario 6 

(Fort Pickett Blackstone Army Airfield Scenario 3) 

 
 57 

Appendix D: Air Traffic Control Alerts about Other Aircraft 

ATC ALERTS ABOUT OTHER AIRCRAFT 

Scenario 1 (Surry Nuclear Power Plant Scenario 1): South of Cooling Towers facing NE 

Alert Time: 120 seconds from start (Point-Out) UH-60 Sighted: 137 seconds 

“FASER123, Felker Tower, Traffic, a UH Sixty, four miles northeast of your position will be 

passing to your east over the river inbound to Felker Army Airfield. Report traffic in sight.” 

Alert Time: 340 seconds from start (Point-Out) Cessna 172 Sighted: 350 seconds 

“FASER123, Felker Tower, Traffic, a Cessna 172, four miles southeast of your position will be 

passing from your east to north along the river. Report traffic in sight.” 

Alert Time: 545 seconds from start (Point-Out) Cessna 172 Sighted: 581 seconds 

“FASER123, Felker Tower, Traffic, a Cessna 172, three miles north of your position heading 

southeast will pass approximately two miles northeast of your position. Report traffic in sight.” 

Scenario 2 (Surry Nuclear Power Plant Scenario 2): East of Cooling Towers facing W 

Alert Time: 270 seconds from start (Evasive Action) Cessna 172 Sighted: 318 seconds 

Note: This intruder starts out 6 miles north of tower and may not be seen by ATC. It could be a 

NO ATC ALERT to see if the FASER pilot notices it. 

“FASER123, Felker Tower, Traffic, unidentified small aircraft, over the river approximately three 

miles to your north, low altitude, headed your direction, NO RADIO. Circle within visual line of 

sight at low altitude. Advise traffic in sight.” 

Scenario 3 (Surry Nuclear Power Plant Scenario 3): West of Cooling Towers facing E 

Sighting Time: 52 seconds from start (Jet Sighted-NO ALERT) 

Alert Time: 260 seconds from start (Point-Out) UH-60 Sighted: 307 seconds 

“FASER123, Felker Tower, Traffic, a UH-60, three miles east of your position will be passing 

about one mile east of your position heading northwest. Report traffic in sight.” 

Alert Time: 520 seconds from start (Evasive Action) Sighted: 550 seconds 

“FASER123, Felker Tower, Traffic, unidentified small aircraft, over the river approximately three 

point five miles southeast of your position, low altitude, headed your direction, NO RADIO. 

Circle within visual line of sight at low altitude. Advise traffic in sight.” 

Scenario 4 (Fort Pickett Blackstone Army Airfield Scenario 1): Lumber Yard Area facing E 

Alert Time: 170 seconds from start (Evasive Action) UH-60 Sighted: 205 seconds 

“FASER99, Blackstone Tower, Traffic, UH-60, two point five miles northeast, low altitude, 

headed your direction, NO RADIO. Circle within visual line of sight at low altitude. Advise traffic 

in sight.” 

Scenario 5 (Fort Pickett Blackstone Army Airfield Scenario 2): Water Plant/Motor Pool 

Area facing W 

Alert Time: 15 seconds from start (Point-Out) Cessna 172 Sighted: 43 seconds 

“FASER99, Blackstone Tower, Traffic, a Cessna 172, three miles northwest of your position will 

be passing about one mile to your west heading south. Report traffic in sight.” 

Sighting Time: 277 seconds from start (Jet Sighted-NO ALERT) 
 58 

Alert Time: 415 seconds from start (Point-Out) Cessna 172 Sighted 434 seconds 

“FASER99, Blackstone Tower, Traffic, a Cessna 172, three miles northwest of your position will 

be passing about one mile to your west heading south. Report traffic in sight.” 

Alert Time: 625 seconds from start (Evasive Action) UH-60 Sighted 625 seconds 

“FASER99, Blackstone Tower, Traffic, UH-60, two point five miles southwest, low altitude, 

headed your direction, NO RADIO. Circle within visual line of sight at low altitude. Advise traffic 

in sight.” 

Scenario 6 (Fort Pickett Blackstone Army Airfield Scenario 3): ATC Tower Area North 

Side of ARPT facing NE 

Alert Time: 70 seconds from start (Point-Out) UH-60 Medevac Sighted: 132 seconds 

“FASER99, Blackstone Tower, Traffic, a UH-60 Medevac, three miles northeast of your position 

will be passing about one mile to your east, heading to the south side of the airport to pick up 

patients. Report traffic in sight.” 

Scenario 10 (Practice Scenario – Fort Pickett 4): North of Active RWY facing SE 

Alert Time: 40 seconds from start (Evasive Action) UH-60 Sighted: 80 seconds 

“FASER99, Blackstone Tower, Traffic, UH-60, two point five miles southeast, low altitude, 

headed your direction, NO RADIO. Circle within visual line of sight at low altitude. Advise traffic 

in sight” 

Alert Time: 340 seconds from start (Point-Out) Cessna 172 Sighted: 368 seconds 

“FASER99, Blackstone Tower, Traffic, a Cessna 172, three miles east of your position will be 

passing about one mile to your northeast heading northwest. Report traffic in sight.” 

Scenario 11 & 13 (Practice Scenario – Fort Pickett 5): South of Active RWY looking E 

Sighting Time: 90 seconds from start (Jet Sighted-NO ALERT) 

Alert Time: 288 seconds from start (Evasive Action) Cessna 172 Sighted: 320 seconds 

“FASER99, Blackstone Tower, Traffic, Cessna 172, two point five miles northwest, low altitude, 

headed your direction, NO RADIO. Circle within visual line of sight at low altitude. Advise traffic 

in sight” 

Alert Time: 440 seconds from start (Point-Out) UH-60 Depart N Sighted: 505 seconds 

“FASER99, Blackstone Tower, Traffic, a UH-60, taxiing on to NE end of active runway; will be 

departing northeast. Report traffic in sight.” 

Scenario 12 (Practice Scenario – Fort Pickett 6): East of Active RWY, North of Lumber 

Yard facing E 

Alert Time: 60 seconds from start (Evasive Action) Cessna 172 Sighted: 108 seconds 

“FASER99, Blackstone Tower, Traffic, Cessna 172, two point five miles west, low altitude, 

headed your direction, NO RADIO. Circle within visual line of sight at low altitude. Advise traffic 

in sight” 

Sighting Time: 195 seconds from start (Jet Sighted-NO ALERT) 

Alert Time: 330 seconds from start (Evasive Action) UH-60 Sighted: 406 seconds 

“FASER99, Blackstone Tower, Traffic, UH-60, two point five miles south, low altitude, headed 

your direction, NO RADIO. Circle within visual line of sight at low altitude. Advise traffic in sight” 
 59 

Alert Time: 550 seconds from start (Evasive Action) Cessna 172 Sighted: 602 seconds 

“FASER99, Blackstone Tower, Traffic, Cessna 172, three miles northeast, low altitude, headed 

your direction, NO RADIO. Circle within visual line of sight at low altitude. Advise traffic in sight” 

 
 60 

Appendix E: Surry Nuclear Power Plant Scripts for Air Traffic Control 

and Mission Control 

Scenario 1 (Surry Nuclear Power Plant Scenario 1) 

ATC Alert 1: 120 seconds from start (Helicopter) TYPE: Point-Out 

ATC Alert 2: 340 seconds from start (GA Airplane) TYPE: Point-Out 

ATC Alert 3: 545 seconds from start (GA Airplane) TYPE: Point-Out 

 The pilot contacts FAF Tower to inform ATC of the proposed flight operation and 

mission. 

 “Felker Tower, FASER123” 

 Tower reply: 

 “FASER123, Felker Tower, go ahead.” 

 FASER reply should be something like this: 

“FASER123 is a small UAS at the Surry Nuclear Power Station by Hog 

Island. We will be conducting an inspection of the power station remaining 

within 400 yards of the facility, at or below 400 feet for approximately one 

hour, becoming airborne in about five minutes.” 

Tower reply: 

“FASER123, roger, altimeter two, niner, niner, two, wind one, eight, zero at 

five, report airborne.” 

 The pilot advises FAF Tower that the FASER has been launched and he 

continues monitoring the tower frequency (126.3 MHz) during the flight, while 

watching for other aircraft. 

 “Felker Tower, FASER123 airborne at (time), will remain within 400 yards of 

Surry Nuclear Power Station at or below 400 feet.” 

Felker Tower reply: 

“FASER123, roger, report on the ground when mission is completed.” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123, roger, wilco.” 
 61 

The pilot advises Mission Control that the FASER is airborne and enroute to 

waypoint one: 

“Mission Control, FASER123 airborne, enroute to waypoint one” 

Mission Control reply: 

“FASER123, roger, loiter at waypoint one until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint one” 

FASER reply: 

 “FASER123 wilco” 

“FASER123 established waypoint one” 

Mission Control reply: 

“Roger” 

Mission Control advises FASER123 to proceed: 

“FASER123 proceed waypoint two, report established ” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123 proceeding waypoint two” 

“FASER123 established waypoint two” 

Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger” 

Mission Control advises FASER123 to proceed: 

“FASER123 proceed waypoint three, report established ” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123 proceeding waypoint three” 
 62 

“FASER123 established waypoint three” 

Mission Control reply: 

“Roger” 

 Mission Control advises FASER123 to proceed: 

“FASER123 proceed waypoint four, report established ” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123 proceeding waypoint four” 

“FASER123 established waypoint four” 

Mission Control reply: 

“Roger” 

 Mission Control advises FASER123 to proceed: 

“FASER123 proceed waypoint five, report established ” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123 proceeding waypoint five” 

 “FASER123 established waypoint five” 

Mission Control reply: 

“Roger” 

 Mission Control advises FASER123 to proceed: 

“FASER123 proceed waypoint six, report established” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123 proceeding waypoint six” 
 63 

 “FASER123 established waypoint six” 

Mission Control reply: 

“Roger” 

 Mission Control advises FASER123 to proceed: 

“FASER123 proceed waypoint seven, report established” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123 proceeding waypoint seven” 

“FASER123 established waypoint seven” 

Mission Control reply: 

“Roger” 

 Mission Control terminates mission: 

“FASER123, data collection completed, mission terminated. Report on 

ground to ATC” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123, roger, mission terminated” 

 The pilot returns the FASER to the launch point for recovery: 

“Felker Tower, FASER123 on the ground, mission terminated” 

Tower reply: 

“FASER123, roger, have a good day” 

 
 64 

Scenario 2 (Surry Nuclear Power Plant Scenario 2) 

ATC Alert: 270 seconds from start (GA Airplane) TYPE: Evasive Action or No Alert 

 The pilot contacts FAF Tower to inform ATC of the proposed flight operation and 

mission. 

 “Felker Tower, FASER123” 

 Tower reply: 

 “FASER123, Felker Tower, go ahead.” 

 FASER reply should be something like this: 

“FASER123 is a small UAS at the Surry Nuclear Power Station by Hog 

Island. We will be conducting an inspection of the power station remaining 

within 400 yards of the facility, at or below 400 feet for approximately one 

hour, becoming airborne in about five minutes.” 

Tower reply: 

“FASER123, roger, altimeter two, niner, niner, two, wind one, eight, zero at 

five, report airborne.” 

 The pilot advises FAF Tower that the FASER has been launched and he 

continues monitoring the tower frequency (126.3 MHz) during the flight, while 

watching for other aircraft. 

 “Felker Tower, FASER123 airborne at (time), will remain within 400 yards of 

Surry Nuclear Power Station at or below 400 feet.” 

Felker Tower reply: 

“FASER123, roger, report on the ground when mission is completed.” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123, roger, wilco.” 

 The pilot advises Mission Control that the FASER is airborne and enroute to 

waypoint one: 

“Mission Control, FASER123 airborne, enroute to waypoint one” 
 65 

Mission Control reply: 

“FASER123, roger, loiter at waypoint one until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint one” 

FASER reply: 

 “FASER123 wilco” 

“FASER123 established waypoint one” 

Mission Control reply: 

“Roger” 

 Mission Control advises FASER123 to proceed: 

“FASER123 proceed waypoint two, report established ” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123 proceeding waypoint two” 

“FASER123 established waypoint two” 

Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger” 

 Mission Control advises FASER123 to proceed: 

“FASER123 proceed waypoint three, report established ” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123 proceeding waypoint three” 

“FASER123 established waypoint three” 

Mission Control reply: 

“Roger” 
 66 

 Mission Control advises FASER123 to proceed: 

“FASER123 proceed waypoint four, report established ” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123 proceeding waypoint four” 

“FASER123 established waypoint four” 

Mission Control reply: 

“Roger” 

 Mission Control advises FASER123 to proceed: 

“FASER123 proceed waypoint five, report established ” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123 proceeding waypoint five” 

 “FASER123 established waypoint five” 

Mission Control reply: 

“Roger” 

 Mission Control advises FASER123 to proceed: 

“FASER123 proceed waypoint six, report established” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123 proceeding waypoint six” 

 “FASER123 established waypoint six” 

Mission Control reply: 
 67 

“Roger” 

 Mission Control advises FASER123 to proceed: 

“FASER123 proceed waypoint seven, report established” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123 proceeding waypoint seven” 

“FASER123 established waypoint seven” 

Mission Control reply: 

“Roger” 

 Mission Control terminates mission: 

“FASER123, data collection completed, mission terminated. Report on 

ground to ATC” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123, roger, mission terminated” 

 The pilot returns the FASER to the launch point for recovery: 

“Felker Tower, FASER123 on the ground, mission terminated” 

Tower reply: 

“FASER123, roger, have a good day” 

 
 68 

Scenario 3 (Surry Nuclear Power Plant Scenario 4) 

Jet Sighted: 52 seconds from start NO ALERT 

ATC Alert 1: 260 seconds from start (Helicopter) TYPE: Point-Out 

ATC Alert 2: 520 seconds from start (GA Airplane) TYPE: Evasive Action 

 The pilot contacts FAF Tower to inform ATC of the proposed flight operation and 

mission. 

 “Felker Tower, FASER123” 

 Tower reply: 

 “FASER123, Felker Tower, go ahead.” 

 FASER reply should be something like this: 

“FASER123 is a small UAS at the Surry Nuclear Power Station by Hog 

Island. We will be conducting an inspection of the power station remaining 

within 400 yards of the facility, at or below 400 feet for approximately one 

hour, becoming airborne in about five minutes.” 

Tower reply: 

“FASER123, roger, altimeter two, niner, niner, two, wind one, eight, zero at 

five, report airborne.” 

 The pilot advises FAF Tower that the FASER has been launched and he 

continues monitoring the tower frequency (126.3 MHz) during the flight, while 

watching for other aircraft. 

 “Felker Tower, FASER123 airborne at (time), will remain within 400 yards of 

Surry Nuclear Power Station at or below 400 feet.” 

Felker Tower reply: 

“FASER123, roger, report on the ground when mission is completed.” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123, roger, wilco.” 
 69 

The pilot advises Mission Control that the FASER is airborne and enroute to 

waypoint one: 

“Mission Control, FASER123 airborne, enroute to waypoint one” 

Mission Control reply: 

“FASER123, roger, loiter at waypoint one until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint one” 

FASER reply: 

 “FASER123 wilco” 

“FASER123 established waypoint one” 

Mission Control reply: 

“Roger” 

Mission Control advises FASER123 to proceed: 

“FASER123 proceed waypoint two, report established ” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123 proceeding waypoint two” 

“FASER123 established waypoint two” 

Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger” 

Mission Control advises FASER123 to proceed: 

“FASER123 proceed waypoint three, report established ” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123 proceeding waypoint three” 
 70 

“FASER123 established waypoint three” 

Mission Control reply: 

“Roger” 

 Mission Control advises FASER123 to proceed: 

“FASER123 proceed waypoint four, report established ” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123 proceeding waypoint four” 

“FASER123 established waypoint four” 

Mission Control reply: 

“Roger” 

 Mission Control advises FASER123 to proceed: 

“FASER123 proceed waypoint five, report established ” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123 proceeding waypoint five” 

 “FASER123 established waypoint five” 

Mission Control reply: 

“Roger” 

 Mission Control advises FASER123 to proceed: 

“FASER123 proceed waypoint six, report established” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123 proceeding waypoint six” 
 71 

 “FASER123 established waypoint six” 

Mission Control reply: 

“Roger” 

 Mission Control advises FASER123 to proceed: 

“FASER123 proceed waypoint seven, report established” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123 proceeding waypoint seven” 

“FASER123 established waypoint seven” 

Mission Control reply: 

“Roger” 

 Mission Control terminates mission: 

“FASER123, data collection completed, mission terminated. Report on 

ground to ATC” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER123, roger, mission terminated” 

 The pilot returns the FASER to the launch point for recovery: 

“Felker Tower, FASER123 on the ground, mission terminated” 

Tower reply: 

“FASER123, roger, have a good day” 

 
 72 

Appendix F: Fort Pickett Scripts for Air Traffic Control and Mission 

Control 

Scenario 4 (Fort Pickett Blackstone Army Airfield Scenario 1) 

ATC Alert 1: 170 seconds from start (Helicopter) TYPE: Evasive Action 

 The state trooper contacts ATC at Blackstone Tower: 

“Blackstone Tower, FASER99” 

ATC 

 “FASER99, Blackstone Tower, go ahead” 

 The state trooper/FASER pilot informs ATC of the impending search and rescue 

mission: 

 FASER 99: 

“Blackstone Tower, FASER 99 is a State Police small unmanned aircraft unit responding 

to the tornado emergency at the lumber yard on the airfield. We have a missing person 

from this site and would like to reposition to a point on the airfield to launch a search and 

rescue effort. We would like to fly at or below 400 ft. over the wooded areas around the 

airfield. We will operate Visual Line-Of-Sight within 400 yards of launch point at all 

times.” 

ATC: 

“FASER 99 roger, repositioning approved, remain at least 25 feet clear of runway. Advise 

when ready to launch.” 

FASER 99: 

“FASER 99, roger. Will reposition and remain clear of runway.” 

 The FASER pilot coordinates with Mission Control to develop a SAR flight pattern, 

repositions to a launch area on the airfield and then informs ATC that he is ready to launch: 

“Blackstone Tower, FASER 99 ready to launch” 
 73 

ATC: 

“FASER 99, Blackstone Tower, roger, remain within 400 yards of launch point at or below 

400 feet and report back on ground at mission termination, Wind 1-8-0 at 5, altimeter 2-9-

9-2. Cleared to launch” 

FASER 99: 

“FASER 99 roger, altimeter 2-9-9-2. Will report back on ground, Cleared to launch” 

 The pilot advises Mission Control that the FASER is airborne and enroute to waypoint 

one: 

“Mission Control, FASER99 airborne, enroute to waypoint one” 

Mission Control reply: 

“FASER99, roger, loiter at waypoint one until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint one” 

FASER reply: 

 “FASER99 wilco” 

 “FASER99 established waypoint one” 

 Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger, established waypoint one” 

 Mission Control advises FASER99 to proceed: 

“FASER99 proceed waypoint two and loiter until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint two.” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER99 proceeding waypoint two” 

“FASER99 established waypoint two” 
 74 

Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger, established waypoint two” 

 Mission Control advises FASER99 to proceed: 

“FASER99 proceed waypoint three and loiter until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint three.” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER99 proceeding waypoint three” 

 “FASER99 established waypoint three” 

 Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger, established waypoint three” 

 Mission Control advises FASER99 to proceed: 

“FASER99 proceed waypoint four and loiter until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint four.” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER99 proceeding waypoint four” 

“FASER99 established waypoint four” 

 Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger, established waypoint four” 

 Mission Control advises FASER99 to proceed: 

“FASER99 proceed waypoint five and loiter until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint five.” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER99 proceeding waypoint five” 
 75 

“FASER99 established waypoint five” 

 Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger, established waypoint five” 

 Mission Control advises FASER99 to proceed: 

“FASER99 proceed waypoint six and loiter until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint six.” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER99 proceeding waypoint six” 

“FASER99 established waypoint six” 

 Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger, established waypoint six” 

 Mission Control advises FASER99 to proceed: 

“FASER99 proceed waypoint seven and loiter until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint seven.” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER99 proceeding waypoint seven” 

“FASER99 established waypoint seven” 

 Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger, established waypoint seven” 

 Mission Control terminates mission: 

“FASER99, data collection completed, mission terminated, report on ground to 

ATC” 
 76 

FASER reply: 

“FASER99, roger, mission terminated” 

 The pilot returns the FASER to the launch point for recovery: 

“Blackstone Tower, FASER99 on the ground, mission terminated” 

Tower reply: 

“FASER99, roger, have a good day” 

 
 77 

Scenario 5 (Fort Pickett Blackstone Army Airfield Scenario 2) 

ATC Alert 1: 15 seconds from start (GA Airplane) TYPE: Point-Out 

Jet Sighted: 277 seconds from start NO ALERT 

ATC Alert 2: 415 seconds from start (GA Airplane) TYPE: Point-Out 

ATC Alert 3: 625 seconds from start (Helicopter) TYPE: Evasive Action 

 The state trooper contacts ATC at Blackstone Tower: 

“Blackstone Tower, FASER99” 

ATC 

 “FASER99, Blackstone Tower, go ahead” 

 The state trooper/FASER pilot informs ATC of the impending search and rescue 

mission: 

 FASER 99: 

“Blackstone Tower, FASER 99 is a State Police small unmanned aircraft unit responding 

to the tornado emergency at the lumber yard on the airfield. We have a missing person 

from this site and would like to reposition to a point on the airfield to launch a search and 

rescue effort. We would like to fly at or below 400 ft. over the wooded areas around the 

airfield. We will operate Visual Line-Of-Sight within 400 yards of launch point at all 

times.” 

ATC: 

“FASER 99 roger, repositioning approved, remain at least 25 feet clear of runway. Advise 

when ready to launch.” 

FASER 99: 

“FASER 99, roger. Will reposition and remain clear of runway.” 

 The FASER pilot coordinates with Mission Control to develop a SAR flight pattern, 

repositions to a launch area on the airfield and then informs ATC that he is ready to launch: 

“Blackstone Tower, FASER 99 ready to launch” 
 78 

ATC: 

“FASER 99, Blackstone Tower, roger, remain within 400 yards of launch point at or below 

400 feet and report back on ground at mission termination, Wind 1-8-0 at 5, altimeter 2-9-

9-2. Cleared to launch” 

FASER 99: 

“FASER 99 roger, altimeter 2-9-9-2. Will report back on ground, Cleared to launch” 

 The pilot advises Mission Control that the FASER is airborne and enroute to waypoint 

one: 

“Mission Control, FASER99 airborne, enroute to waypoint one” 

Mission Control reply: 

“FASER99, roger, loiter at waypoint one until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint one” 

FASER reply: 

 “FASER99 wilco” 

 “FASER99 established waypoint one” 

 Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger, established waypoint one” 

 Mission Control advises FASER99 to proceed: 

“FASER99 proceed waypoint two and loiter until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint two.” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER99 proceeding waypoint two” 

“FASER99 established waypoint two” 

Mission Control reply: 
 79 

 “Roger, established waypoint two” 

 Mission Control advises FASER99 to proceed: 

“FASER99 proceed waypoint three and loiter until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint three.” 

 

FASER reply: 

“FASER99 proceeding waypoint three” 

 “FASER99 established waypoint three” 

 Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger, established waypoint three” 

 Mission Control advises FASER99 to proceed: 

“FASER99 proceed waypoint four and loiter until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint four.” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER99 proceeding waypoint four” 

“FASER99 established waypoint four” 

 Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger, established waypoint four” 

 Mission Control advises FASER99 to proceed: 

“FASER99 proceed waypoint five and loiter until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint five.” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER99 proceeding waypoint five” 
 80 

“FASER99 established waypoint five” 

 Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger, established waypoint five” 

 Mission Control advises FASER99 to proceed: 

“FASER99 proceed waypoint six and loiter until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint six.” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER99 proceeding waypoint six” 

“FASER99 established waypoint six” 

 Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger, established waypoint six” 

 Mission Control advises FASER99 to proceed: 

“FASER99 proceed waypoint seven and loiter until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint seven.” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER99 proceeding waypoint seven” 

“FASER99 established waypoint seven” 

 Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger, established waypoint seven” 

 Mission Control terminates mission: 

“FASER99, data collection completed, mission terminated, report on ground to 

ATC” 
 81 

FASER reply: 

“FASER99, roger, mission terminated” 

 The pilot returns the FASER to the launch point for recovery: 

“Blackstone Tower, FASER99 on the ground, mission terminated” 

Tower reply: 

“FASER99, roger, have a good day” 

 
 82 

Scenario 6 (Fort Pickett Blackstone Army Airfield Scenario 3) 

Jet Sighted: 90 seconds from start NO ALERT 

ATC Alert 1: 288 seconds from start (GA Airplane) TYPE: Evasive Action 

ATC Alert 2: 440 seconds from start (Helicopter) TYPE: Point-Out (Deptr N) 

 The state trooper contacts ATC at Blackstone Tower: 

“Blackstone Tower, FASER99” 

ATC 

 “FASER99, Blackstone Tower, go ahead” 

 The state trooper/FASER pilot informs ATC of the impending search and rescue 

mission: 

 FASER 99: 

“Blackstone Tower, FASER 99 is a State Police small unmanned aircraft unit responding 

to the tornado emergency at the lumber yard on the airfield. We have a missing person 

from this site and would like to reposition to a point on the airfield to launch a search and 

rescue effort. We would like to fly at or below 400 ft. over the wooded areas around the 

airfield. We will operate Visual Line-Of-Sight within 400 yards of launch point at all 

times.” 

ATC: 

“FASER 99 roger, repositioning approved, remain at least 25 feet clear of runway. Advise 

when ready to launch.” 

FASER 99: 

“FASER 99, roger. Will reposition and remain clear of runway.” 

 The FASER pilot coordinates with Mission Control to develop a SAR flight pattern, 

repositions to a launch area on the airfield and then informs ATC that he is ready to launch: 

“Blackstone Tower, FASER 99 ready to launch” 

ATC: 
 83 

“FASER 99, Blackstone Tower, roger, remain within 400 yards of launch point at or below 

400 feet and report back on ground at mission termination, Wind 1-8-0 at 5, altimeter 2-9-

9-2. Cleared to launch” 

FASER 99: 

“FASER 99 roger, altimeter 2-9-9-2. Will report back on ground, Cleared to launch” 

 The pilot advises Mission Control that the FASER is airborne and enroute to waypoint 

one: 

“Mission Control, FASER99 airborne, enroute to waypoint one” 

Mission Control reply: 

“FASER99, roger, loiter at waypoint one until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint one” 

FASER reply: 

 “FASER99 wilco” 

 “FASER99 established waypoint one” 

 Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger, established waypoint one” 

 Mission Control advises FASER99 to proceed: 

“FASER99 proceed waypoint two and loiter until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint two.” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER99 proceeding waypoint two” 

“FASER99 established waypoint two” 

Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger, established waypoint two” 
 84 

 Mission Control advises FASER99 to proceed: 

“FASER99 proceed waypoint three and loiter until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint three.” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER99 proceeding waypoint three” 

 “FASER99 established waypoint three” 

 Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger, established waypoint three” 

 Mission Control advises FASER99 to proceed: 

“FASER99 proceed waypoint four and loiter until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint four.” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER99 proceeding waypoint four” 

“FASER99 established waypoint four” 

 Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger, established waypoint four” 

 Mission Control advises FASER99 to proceed: 

“FASER99 proceed waypoint five and loiter until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint five.” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER99 proceeding waypoint five” 

“FASER99 established waypoint five” 
 85 

 Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger, established waypoint five” 

 Mission Control advises FASER99 to proceed: 

“FASER99 proceed waypoint six and loiter until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint six.” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER99 proceeding waypoint six” 

“FASER99 established waypoint six” 

 Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger, established waypoint six” 

 Mission Control advises FASER99 to proceed: 

“FASER99 proceed waypoint seven and loiter until advised to proceed. Report 

established waypoint seven.” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER99 proceeding waypoint seven” 

“FASER99 established waypoint seven” 

 Mission Control reply: 

 “Roger, established waypoint seven” 

 Mission Control terminates mission: 

“FASER99, data collection completed, mission terminated, report on ground to 

ATC” 

FASER reply: 

“FASER99, roger, mission terminated” 
 86 

 The pilot returns the FASER to the launch point for recovery: 

“Blackstone Tower, FASER99 on the ground, mission terminated” 

Tower reply: 

“FASER99, roger, have a good day” 

 
 87 

Appendix G: Subject Run Orders 

The tables in this Appendix represent the run orders for each of the nine test subjects. In 

addition, the following headings describe the meaning of the Scenario heading, the Display 

heading, and the Data heading that are in the run order tables. 

Scenario Heading Key:

Scenario 1 Surry Nuclear Power Plant Scenario 1 

Scenario 2 Surry Nuclear Power Plant Scenario 2 

Scenario 3 Surry Nuclear Power Plant Scenario 3 

Scenario 4 Fort Pickett Blackstone Army Airfield Scenario 1 

Scenario 5 Fort Pickett Blackstone Army Airfield Scenario 2 

Scenario 6 Fort Pickett Blackstone Army Airfield Scenario 3 

Scenario 10 Practice Scenario – Fort Pickett Scenario 4 

Scenario 11 Practice Scenario – Fort Pickett Scenario 5 

Scenario 12 Practice Scenario – Fort Pickett Scenario 6 

Scenario 13 Practice Scenario – Fort Pickett Scenario 5 

Display Heading Key: 

Display Set 1 VLOS 

Display Set 2 VLOS + PFD (PFD) 

Display Set 3 VLOS + PFD + Moving Map (Map) 

Data Heading Key: 

0 represented data that was recorded but not included in the data analysis 

1 represented data that was recorded and included in the data analysis 
 88 

Table G-1: Subject A Run Order 

Table G-2: Subject B Run Order 

Subject Data Run Scenario Display Data 

A 10 1 0 

A 11 3 0 

A 1 1 3 1 

A 2 5 3 1 

A 3 3 3 1 

A 12 1 0 

A 4 4 1 1 

A 5 2 1 1 

A 6 6 1 1 

A 13 2 0 

A 7 1 2 1 

A 8 5 2 1 

A 9 3 2 1 

Subject Data Run Scenario Display Data 

B 10 1 0 

B 11 2 0 

B 1 5 2 1 

B 2 3 2 1 

B 3 4 2 1 

B 12 3 0 

B 4 2 3 1 

B 5 6 3 1 

B 6 1 3 1 

B 13 1 0 

B 7 5 1 1 

B 8 3 1 1 

B 9 4 1 1 
 89 

Table G-3: Subject C Run Order 

Table G-4: Subject D Run Order 

Subject Data Run Scenario Display Data

C 10 1 0

C 11 1 0

C 1 6 1 1

C 2 1 1 1

C 3 5 1 1

C 12 2 0

C 4 2 2 1

C 5 3 2 1

C 6 4 2 1

C 13 3 0

C 7 6 3 1

C 8 1 3 1

C 9 5 3 1

Subject Data Run Scenario Display Data

D 10 1 0

D 11 3 0

D 1 3 3 1

D 2 1 3 1

D 3 5 3 1

D 12 1 0

D 4 6 1 1

D 5 4 1 1

D 6 2 1 1

D 13 2 0

D 7 3 2 1

D 8 1 2 1

D 9 5 2 1
 90 

Table G-5: Subject E Run Order 

Table G-6: Subject F Run Order 

Subject Data Run Scenario Display Data

E 10 1 0

E 11 2 0

E 1 3 2 1

E 2 4 2 1

E 3 5 2 1

E 12 3 0

E 4 6 3 1

E 5 1 3 1

E 6 2 3 1

E 13 1 0

E 7 3 1 1

E 8 4 1 1

E 9 5 1 1

Subject Data Run Scenario Display Data

F 10 1 0

F 11 1 0

F 1 1 1 1

F 2 5 1 1

F 3 6 1 1

F 12 2 0

F 4 4 2 1

F 5 2 2 1

F 6 3 2 1

F 13 3 0

F 7 1 3 1

F 8 5 3 1

F 9 6 3 1
 91 

Table G-7: Subject G Run Order 

Table G-8: Subject H Run Order 

Subject Data Run Scenario Display Data

G 10 1 0

G 11 3 0

G 1 5 3 1

G 2 3 3 1

G 3 1 3 1

G 12 1 0

G 4 2 1 1

G 5 6 1 1

G 6 4 1 1

G 13 2 0

G 7 5 2 1

G 8 3 2 1

G 9 1 2 1

Subject Data Run Scenario Display Data

H 10 1 0

H 11 2 0

H 1 4 2 1

H 2 5 2 1

H 3 3 2 1

H 12 3 0

H 4 1 3 1

H 5 2 3 1

H 6 6 3 1

H 13 1 0

H 7 4 1 1

H 8 5 1 1

H 9 3 1 1
 92 

Table G-9: Subject I Run Order 

 

Subject Data Run Scenario Display Data 

I 10 1 0 

I 11 1 0 

I 1 5 1 1 

I 2 6 1 1 

I 3 1 1 1 

I 12 2 0 

I 4 4 2 1 

I 5 2 2 1 

I 6 3 2 1 

I 13 3 0 

I 7 5 3 1 

I 8 6 3 1 

I 9 1 3 1 
 93 

Appendix H: Ground Control Station Display Questionnaire 

PILOT GCS QUESTIONNAIRE 

The following questions refer to the head-down flat panel display 

1. How well did the Ground Control Station (GCS) warn you of upcoming obstacles? 

____________________________________________________________ 

| | | | | | | | | | | 

 Not Very Neutral Very 

 Well Well 

Comments: ____________________________________________________________ 

 ______________________________________________________________________ 

 ______________________________________________________________________ 

2. Overall, understanding/navigating the GCS was 

____________________________________________________________ 

| | | | | | | | | | | 

 Not Very Neutral Very 

 Realistic Realistic 

Comments: ____________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

3. How well was the layout of the display? 

____________________________________________________________ 

| | | | | | | | | | | 

 Not Very Neutral Very 

 Well Well 

Comments: ____________________________________________________________ 

 ______________________________________________________________________ 

 ______________________________________________________________________ 
 94 

4. Did the display provide the information you needed to know the current status of your 

aircraft (location, altitude, speed, attitude, etc...) and to carry out the intended mission? 

A) No 

B) Yes 

If no, what information was missing? ______________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

5. Was there any information you needed that was not provided on the display? 

A) No 

B) Yes 

If yes, what information was missing? _____________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

6. Do you believe that ADS-B is necessary in visual line-of-sight operations? 

A) No 

B) Yes 

If no, why not? If yes, go to number 4. _____________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

7. What information in the ADS-B do you believe is necessary to have? 

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________ 
 95 

8. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions that could improve our Ground 

Control Station? 

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________ 

 
 96 

Appendix I: Final/Exit Questionnaire 

PILOT FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE 

1. Place the following Ground Control Station Displays in order of preference, with number 

1 being the best and number 3 being the worst 

__________ None 

__________ PFD 

__________ PFD + Map 

Please say why you chose the order you did: _______________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________ 

2. Overall, the data runs were: 

____________________________________________________________ 

| | | | | | | | | | | 

 Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very 

Hard Hard Easy Easy 

Comments: ____________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________ 

3. Today, from the first data run to the last data run, my ability to avoid obstacles was: 

____________________________________________________________ 

| | | | | | | | | | | 

 Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very 

Hard Hard Easy Easy 

Comments: ____________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 
 97 

4. Today, from the first data run to the last data run, my ability to fly the intended loiter 

points was: 

____________________________________________________________ 

| | | | | | | | | | | 

 Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very 

Hard Hard Easy Easy 

Comments: ____________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

5. How well were you able to maintain visual line-of-sight with the strobe lights? 

____________________________________________________________ 

| | | | | | | | | | | 

 Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very 

Hard Hard Easy Easy 

Comments: ____________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

6. Do you believe strobe lights are necessary in visual line-of-sight operations during the 

day time? 

A) No 

B) Yes 

Comments: ____________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

7. Overall, maintaining visual line-of-sight was: 

____________________________________________________________ 

| | | | | | | | | | | 

 Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very 

Hard Hard Easy Easy 

Comments: ____________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 
 98 

8. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions that could improve our Ground 

Control Station? 

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________ 

 
 99 

Appendix J: Experimenter’s Instructions Sheet 

HITL 01: Experimenter’s Instructions Sheet 

Background 

 My background 

 Essentially, this line of research will investigate pilots' abilities to safely fly a sUAS with a 

manual controller in visual line-of-sight operations 

Purpose 

 The objectives are to determine: 

1. Determine the sUAS ability to safely avoid obstacles under VLOS operations. 

2. Determine the effectiveness of the GCS in meeting normal NAS operational 

requirements for pilot/ATC communication. 

3. Identify any potential human system integration deficiencies that could hinder the safe, 

effective, and efficient integration of sUAS VLOS mission within controlled airspace 

(class C, D, and E airspace). 

General Procedure 

 This is no more than a 8 hr. experiment conducted in a low-to-medium fidelity simulator 

 During each 20 min run, you will need to safely navigate to various loiter points 

 After the data runs, you will complete questionnaires about your preferences for the 

information present in the GCS 

Informed Consent Form 

 All data will be kept confidential 

 You will be referred to only by a number 

 All reporting of data will be by group statistics. If a particular quote is used in a report, no 

identifying characteristics will be used in association with the quote. 

 Briefly go over sections 

 Have subject sign Informed Consent Form 

Simulator 

 You will be flying a simulation similar to that of a sUAS 

 For all runs, you will be controlling the sUAS with a manual controller (Figure 1). The right 

stick controls bank angle and pitch while the left stick controls yaw and throttle. 

 For some of the runs you will have a PFD available (Figure 2). The portions of the display 

consist of the airspeed, compass rose heading, ADI, vertical speed and altitude display. 

This display is on the left screen. 

 For other runs you will have a map display available (Figure 3) in addition to the PFD. This 

display is on the middle right screen. 

 You will not be flying using the autopilot or auto-throttles 

Task 

 Each run last approximately 20 min 

 During that time, you will safely navigate the sUAS to the various waypoints while avoiding 

any and all obstacles by at least 50 feet 

 Starting point is approximately 40 ft. AGL.

 Two types of scenarios (NRC Surry nuclear power plant inspection & police SAR mission 

after tornado at Fort Pickett). 

 Proper mission altitude: 

o Surry NRC missions 250 ft. AGL 

o Blackstone AAF SAR mission 200 ft. AGL. 
 100 

 Communication protocol (ATC & MC). 

o Initial Radio Calls 

o Always call ATC prior to launching to receive permission for the mission 

and to receive instructions 

o Always call Mission Control to report airborne to initiate the mission and 

receive mission instructions 

o For the Surry NRC, always contact Felker Tower about take-off and landing 

o For Ft. Pickett, you must have ATC clearance before take-off and landing 

 It will be assumed that the mission has been pre-coordinated between the pilot and Mission 

Control before the mission. The pilot will know the seven waypoint locations and that he will 

be expected to loiter at each one for data collection by Mission Control. The pilot will be 

directed by Mission Control to proceed to each waypoint and to report established there. 

After loitering for 60 seconds, the pilot will be instructed to proceed to the next successive 

waypoint. After loitering at waypoint seven for 60 seconds, the Mission Control specialist will 

inform the pilot that the mission is terminated, and to report “on the ground” to ATC. 

 ATC Alerts: Intruder aircraft (evasive action) and point-outs (local traffic). 

 If ATC instructs to “Circle within visual line of sight at low altitude, advise traffic in 

sight” the pilot should return to a point front and center of the launch point and hold there at 

low altitude until traffic is no longer a factor. When it appears traffic is no longer a factor, 

advise ATC and request to resume mission. When cleared, inform Mission Control 

that you took evasive action to comply with ATC instructions, and request further 

mission instructions. Mission Control will have you proceed to the same or next 

successive waypoint, depending on how long you were at the last waypoint. 

 Mission Completion: When the Mission Control specialist terminates the mission, 

return to the launch point and circle, and report on ground to ATC.

 Crash criteria: 

o Crash prior to reaching waypoint 5 (start again-data eliminated) 

o Crash twice before reaching waypoint 5 (proceed to the next scenario) 

o Data will be kept from runs that terminate in a crash with notation as to where the 

crash occurred. 

 50 ft. obstacle-avoidance radius around ground-based obstacles: Violations of the 

obstacle areas are considered a failure to avoid obstacles, rather than crashes. 

 At the end of each run, you will answer 6 situation awareness questions using the 

touchscreens. These questions will come up on the left display. 

o Go over questions 

 To move on to the next question, please hit the “NEXT” button 

 The next question you may have to answer has to do with how easy it was to fly the sUAS 

using the CH rating scale. This is done using an interactive flow chart (Figures 4 and 5). 

o The first question is “Is it controllable?” Answer “NO” if you lost control during the run. 

In this case, you must give it a rating of 10. Just touch anywhere in the box to record 

your answer. 

o If it is controllable, then the next question is “Is adequate performance attainable with a 

tolerable pilot workload?” If workload was too high, answer “NO” and you will be able to 

give a rating of 7, 8, or 9. 
 101 

o If workload was tolerable, then the next question is “Is it satisfactory without 

improvement?” If some improvement needs to be made, answer “NO” and you will be 

able to give a rating of 4, 5, or 6. For pitch, adequate performance is defined as being 

within 1 width of the airplane symbol on the PFD (Figure 6) and for bank, adequate 

performance is defined as being within 2 widths of the airplane symbol on the PFD 

(Figure 7). 

o If no improvement is warranted, then you can give a rating of 1, 2, or 3. For pitch, 

desired performance is defined as being within 1⁄2 width of the airplane symbol on the 

PFD (Figure 8) and for bank angle, desired performance is defined as being within 1 

width of the airplane symbol (Figure 9). 

o Go over meaning of text for numbered ratings 

o If you want to change your answer after you hit the “NEXT” button, just let me know and 

I’ll make a note of it 

 The next set of questions you may have to answer have to do with workload (Figure 10). 

o Go over each of the scales 

o To make a rating, just touch anywhere on the scale 

o To change your rating, you can either just touch where you want to bar to jump to or you 

can drag the bar to the new rating 

o Once you have made all 6 ratings, the “NEXT” button becomes active 

 After you answer the questions above, you will then be briefed for the next data run 

 I can answer questions on how the simulator works but not what is going on during the runs. 

If there is a simulation error, we will advise you. 

Final Questionnaire 

 At the end of the data runs, you will complete a final questionnaire asking for your opinions 

on the displays you just saw and your ability to fly the sUAS 

 You will also have a quick debriefing session where you can add any other input 

Runs 

 You will have multiple data runs, using first the _____ display, then the ____ display, and 

finally the _____ display 

 Before the data runs after a display change, you will have at least 1 practice run which shall 

behave just like the data runs 

 At any time, please feel free to take/ask for a break 

 Any questions? 

 
 102 

Appendix K: Informed Consent Form 

Human Subject Research Volunteer Informed Consent Statement

Title of Research: Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Human-Systems Integration Human-inthe-Loop 01 

Principal Investigator/Phone: Anna C. Trujillo, Principle Investigator and Senior Research 

Engineer, NASA LaRC Crew Systems and Aviation Operations Branch, (757) 864-8047, 

anna.c.trujillo@nasa.gov 

Co-Investigators/Phone: 

Raymon Mcadaragh, Aerospace Psychologist, SGT Inc., NASA LaRC Crew Systems and 

Aviation Operations Branch, 757-864-6055, raymon.mcadaragh@nasa.gov 

Daniel Burdette, Research Engineer, Northrop Grumman, NASA LaRC Crew Systems and 

Aviation Operations Branch, 757-864-6644, daniel.w.burdette@nasa.gov 

James R. Comstock, Jr., Ph.D., Research Engineer, NASA LaRC Crew Systems and Aviation 

Operations Branch, 757-864-6643, james.r.comstock@nasa.gov 

Rania Ghatas, Research Engineer, NASA LaRC Crew Systems and Aviation Operations 

Branch, 757-864-5411, rania.w.ghatas@nasa.gov 

Federal regulations require researchers to obtain signed consent for participation in research 

involving human subjects. After reading the information and the Statement of Consent below, if 

you wish to consent, please indicate so by signing this Informed Consent. 

I. Statement of Procedure: 

Thank you for your interest in this research. By this time, you should have had the experimental 

rationale and procedures discussed with you in detail. You will find a summary of the major 

aspects of this research below, including the risks and benefits of participating. Please feel free 

to ask any questions about the procedures at any time. Carefully read the information provided 

below. IF YOU WISH TO PARTICIPATE in this study, please sign your name and date the form 

in the space provided on the last page. Any information you provide will be maintained in strict 

confidence to protect your privacy. 

II. I understand that: 

 This is a research experiment. There will be approximately 9 individuals participating in 

this study. 

 I will be participating in a research activity whose objective is to build a small Unmanned 

Aircraft System Ground Control Station and to test if the sUAS information elements are 

sufficient for a pilot to safely fly in the National Airspace System (NAS). 

 This study will be performed at NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, in 

the Test and Evaluation Simulator (TES). The TES is a fixed-based (no motion) 180 

degree view simulator. 
 103 

 I will receive training on the operation of the equipment that I will operate and a briefing 

on the tasks in which I will participate. I will be allowed time to familiarize myself with the 

equipment prior to starting my participation in the research. 

 If I consent to participate in the research, I will be asked to fly approximately 9 

unmanned aircraft simulated runs while evaluating the Ground Control Station. Each run 

lasts approximately 30 minutes. After each run, I will be asked to fill out three separate 

questionnaires. 

 During the course of the research, I will provide my impressions and assessments by 

providing my input and completing multiple questionnaires, which will include a situation 

awareness questionnaire, a ground control station display questionnaire, a NASA-TLX 

workload questionnaire, a Cooper-Harper rating scale, and a final questionnaire. I will 

also receive a privacy act notice and complete a background questionnaire. I will also 

participate in a post-experiment debriefing. 

 The duration of my participation will require approximately 8 hours of my time over 1 

day. I may take a break at any time, though I am encouraged to complete each scenario 

before taking a break. 

 I may contact list PI names and telephone number and email addresses if I have any 

questions regarding this experiment before, during, or after the participation. 

III. Compensation 

Non-government volunteers will be compensated for their participation. 

Civil servant volunteers who participate in the research do so in their official capacity. A civil 

servant injured during the course of this research may file for compensation through the Federal 

Workers Compensation System. For additional information, I may contact the LaRC Office of 

Human Resources at 757-864-2554. 

Non-civil servant volunteers injured as a result of participating in the research may file a claim 

under the Federal Tort Claims Act by filing Standard Form 95. For additional information, I may 

contact the LaRC Office of the Chief Counsel at 757-864-3221. Additionally, in the event of 

injury insurance coverage is provided to me as a research subject volunteer under the NASA 

Langley Teams II contract. For additional information, I may contact Regina Johns at 757-864-

9168. 

IV. Potential Risks

 There are no apparent risks associated with participation in this study other than those 

experienced during normal participation in flight simulation activity. In the event that 

something does occur, I may request to stop the experiment at any time. 

 In the unlikely event that I am injured or otherwise experience discomfort while at NASA 

Langley, I may visit the on-site Occupational Health Clinic. The Clinic has hours of 

operation from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The clinic number is 864-3193. Emergency 

medical personnel and ambulance service is also available to transport me to nearby 

health care providers. 

 If I have questions about the research and my rights should I experience any injury, I 

may contact the principal investigators listed at the beginning of this document. 
 104 

V. Potential Benefits 

I will derive no personal benefit apart from the compensation noted above, except the 

knowledge that my participation has contributed to the literature and data available within a 

particular research discipline. Overall, the research will contribute to a better understanding of 

crew systems research and the chance to directly affect the information elements of a sUAS 

Ground Control Station (GCS). Hence, all members of the aviation and research community and 

the flying public are potential beneficiaries of the research. 

VI. Confidentiality (Address how information is recorded, shared, and protected. Add 

other information unique to the research in question) 

 I understand that any public release of any data will be done in a manner that does not 

associate me with the data. 

 I understand that the data files recorded during my participation in this research activity 

may be shared with other researchers within NASA (and outside NASA, if applicable) 

and that these files will be identified only by the subject number assigned by the 

experimenter. 

 I do voluntarily consent to sharing the data files recorded during my data collection 

session, as long as my identity is not disclosed. 

VII. Voluntary Participation 

Taking part in this study is voluntary. I may withdraw from participating or be asked to withdraw 

from participating at any time. Such a decision will not result in any penalty or loss of benefits to 

which I may otherwise be entitled. 

VIII. Safety 

As a voluntary test subject participating in this research, I understand that: 

 NASA is committed to ensuring my safety, health, and welfare plus the safety and health 

of all others involved with this research. 

 I should report any accident, injury, illness, and changes in my health condition, hazards, 

safety concerns, or health concerns to Anna Trujillo at (757) 864-8047 or at 

anna.c.trujillo@nasa.gov. If I am unable to reach the above named individuals or am not 

satisfied with the response I receive, I should contact the LaRC Safety Office at (757) 

864-7233 or the Chairperson of the LaRC Institutional Review Board, Mr. Jeffrey S. Hill, 

at (757) 864-5107. 

 If I detect any unsafe condition that presents an imminent danger to me, or others, I 

have the right and authority to stop the activity or test. In such cases the Principal 

Investigator and associated research personnel will comply with my direction, stop the 

activity, and take action to address the imminent danger. 
 105 

XI. Statement of Consent: 

 I certify that I have read and fully understand the explanation of procedures, benefits, 

and risks associated with the research herein, and I agree to participate in the research 

described herein. My participation is given voluntarily and without coercion or undue 

influence, and I also voluntarily consent to sharing the data files recorded during my data 

collection session, as long as my identity is not disclosed. I understand that I may 

discontinue participation at any time. I have been provided a copy of this consent 

statement. If I have any questions or modifications to this consent statement, they are 

written below. 

Signature of Subject: ____________________________________ 

Name (Print legal name): ___________________________ Date: ___________________ 

__ Participant has been provided with a Privacy Act Statement meeting the requirements 

outlined in 14 CFR 1212.602 

Principal Investigator (or Designee): 

I have given this subject information about this study. I believe this to be accurate and complete. 

The subject has indicated that he or she understands the nature of the risks and benefits of 

participating in this study. 

Name: __________________________________ Title: ___________________________ 

Signature: _______________________________ Date: ___________________________ 

 
 106 

Appendix L: Privacy Act Notice 

PRIVACY ACT NOTICE

COLLECTION OF INFORMATION TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN 

RESEARCH AS A SUBJECT VOLUNTEER 

GENERAL

This information is provided pursuant to Public Law 93-579 (Privacy Act of 1974), December 31, 

1974, for individuals supplying information for inclusion in a system of records. 

AUTHORITY 

The authority to collect the information requested from you in the informed consent associated 

with sUAS HSI HITL01 in which you may participate is derived from one or more of the 

following: Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 1212 and 1230; Title 42, United 

States Code, Section 2451, as amended. 

PURPOSES AND USES 

The information you supply will be used to determine your eligibility to participate as a volunteer 

subject in the sUAS HSI HITL01. The information you provide will be evaluated by NASA 

employees and contractors overseeing and conducting the research. Your personal identifying 

information will not be shared outside of NASA and contractor and intern researchers working 

with NASA who are associated with this particular research. Your personal identifying 

information will be maintained under secure conditions (locked file), and only the Principal 

Investigator(s) (PI) overseeing your research will have access to your personal identifying 

information contained within the file. 

The information will be maintained in a NASA System of Records: Human Experimental 

Research Data Records (NASA 10HERD). The information supplied is confidential and will be 

maintained under secure conditions as described above but is subject to routine uses for such 

information that are identified in System of Record Notice for Human Experimental Research 

Data Records published at 72 Federal Register 55812 on October 1, 2007. Release of such 

information is not permissible where your consent is required. 

EFFECTS OF NONDISCLOSURE 

Disclosure of the personal identifying information sought is voluntary; however, failure to furnish 

the information could exclude you from being able to participate as a volunteer in the research. 

 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ 

Signature of Interviewer Signature of Volunteer 

 Date: ______________________________ 

 
 107 

Appendix M: Mission Tracks 

The following figures show the mission tracks for the last data run for each display condition 

for each subject. They are order by display condition (VLOS, PFD, Map) then subject. The red 

dotted box indicates visual-line-of-sight area from the eye point and the green horizontal line 

indicates the prescribed altitude. 

Figure M-1: Subject A Mission Track for Scenario 6, Data Run 6, VLOS 

Figure M-2: Subject B Mission Track for Scenario 1, Data Run 3, VLOS 
 108 

Figure M-3: Subject C Mission Track for Scenario 5, Data Run 3, VLOS 

Figure M-4: Subject D Mission Track for Scenario 2, Data Run 6, VLOS 

 
 109 

Figure M-5: Subject E Mission Track for Scenario 5, Data Run 9, VLOS 

Figure M-6: Subject F Mission Track for Scenario 6, Data Run 3, VLOS 

 
 110 

Figure M-7: Subject G Mission Track for Scenario 4, Data Run 6, VLOS 

Figure M-8: Subject H Mission Track for Scenario 3, Data Run 9, VLOS 

 
 111 

Figure M-9: Subject I Mission Track for Scenario 4, Data Run 9, VLOS 

Figure M-10: Subject A Mission Track for Scenario 1, Data Run 7, PFD 

 
 112 

Figure M-11: Subject B Mission Track for Scenario 3, Data Run 6, PFD 

Figure M-12: Subject C Mission Track for Scenario 4, Data Run 6, PFD 

 
 113 

Figure M-13: Subject D Mission Track for Scenario 5, Data Run 9, PFD 

Figure M-14: Subject E Mission Track for Scenario 5, Data Run 3, PFD 

 
 114 

Figure M-15: Subject F Mission Track for Scenario 3, Data Run 6, PFD 

Figure M-16: Subject G Mission Track for Scenario 1, Data Run 9, PFD 

 
 115 

Figure M-17: Subject H Mission Track for Scenario 3, Data Run 3, PFD 

Figure M-18: Subject I Mission Track for Scenario 4, Data Run 3, PFD 

 
 116 

Figure M-19: Subject A Mission Track for Scenario 3, Data Run 3, Map 

Figure M-20: Subject B Mission Track for Scenario 1, Data Run 9, Map 

 
 117 

Figure M-21: Subject C Mission Track for Scenario 5, Data Run 9, Map 

Figure M-22: Subject D Mission Track for Scenario 5, Data Run 3, Map 

 
 118 

Figure M-23: Subject E Mission Track for Scenario 2, Data Run 6, Map 

Figure M-24: Subject F Mission Track for Scenario 6, Data Run 9, Map 

 
 119 

Figure M-25: Subject G Mission Track for Scenario 1, Data Run 3, Map 

Figure M-26: Subject H Mission Track for Scenario 6, Data Run 6, Map 

 
 120 

Figure M-27: Subject I Mission Track for Scenario 1, Data Run 6, Map 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

2. REPORT TYPE 

Technical Memorandum

 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration into the National Airspace 

System Visual-Line-of-Sight Human-in-the-Loop Experiment 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

 6. AUTHOR(S)

Trujillo, Anna C.; Ghatas, Rania W.; McAdaragh, Raymon; Burdette, 

Daniel W.; Comstock, James R.; Hempley, Lucas E.; Fan Hui

 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681-2199

 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546-0001

 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

L-20366

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NASA

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified - Unlimited

Subject Category 01

Availability: NASA STI Program (757) 864-9658

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email: help@sti.nasa.gov)

14. ABSTRACT

As part of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) project, research on integrating small UAS

(sUAS) into the NAS was underway by a human-systems integration (HSI) team at the NASA Langley Research Center. Minimal to no 

research has been conducted on the safe, effective, and efficient manner in which to integrate these aircraft into the NAS. sUAS are defined 

as aircraft weighing 55 pounds or less. The objective of this human system integration team was to build a UAS Ground Control Station 

(GCS) and to develop a research test-bed and database that provides data, proof of concept, and human factors guidelines for GCS 

operations in the NAS. The objectives of this experiment were to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of flying sUAS in Class D and Class 

G airspace utilizing manual control inputs and voice radio communications between the pilot, mission control, and air traffic control. The 

design of the experiment included three sets of GCS display configurations, in addition to a hand-held control unit. The three different 

display configurations were VLOS, VLOS + Primary Flight Display (PFD), and VLOS + PFD + Moving Map (Map).

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Airspace; Experiment design; Ground based control; Man machine system; System integration; Unmanned aircraft systems

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

130

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

(757) 864-9658

a. REPORT

U

c. THIS PAGE

U

b. ABSTRACT

U

17. LIMITATION OF 

 ABSTRACT

UU

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

425425.01.01.07.01 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

 NUMBER(S)

NASA-TP-2015-218684

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and 

Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person 

shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01- 02 - 2015