Flight Demonstration of Unmanned Aircraft System 

(UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) 

at Technical Capability Level 3 

Arwa Aweiss 

Aviation Systems Division 

NASA Ames Research Center 

Moffett Field, USA 

Arwa.s.aweiss@nasa.gov 

Marcus Johnson 

Aviation Systems Division 

NASA Ames Research Center 

Moffett Field, USA 

marcus.johnson@nasa.gov 

Jeffrey Homola 

Human Machines Systems 

NASA Ames Research Center 

Moffett Field, USA 

Jeffrey.r.homola@nasa.gov 

Joey Mercer 

Human Machines Systems 

NASA Ames Research Center 

Moffett Field, USA 

Joey.mercer@nasa.gov 

Joseph Rios 

Aviation Systems Division 

NASA Ames Research Center 

Moffett Field, USA 

Joseph.l.rios@nasa.gov 

Hemil Modi 

Science and Technology Corp 

NASA Ames Research Center 

Moffett Field, USA 

hemil.c.modi-1@nasa.gov 

Jaewoo Jung 

Aviation Systems Division 

NASA Ames Research Center 

Moffett Field, USA 

Jaewoo.jung@nasa.gov 

Edgar Torres 

Metis Flight Research 

Associates, LLC 

NASA Ames Research Center 

Moffett Field, USA 

edgar.torres@nasa.gov 

Abraham Ishihara 

SGT, Inc. 

NASA Ames Research Center 

Moffett Field, USA 

abraham.k.ishihara@nasa.gov 

Abstract— The goal of the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) 

Traffic Management (UTM) effort at NASA is to enable access 

to low-altitude airspace for small UAS. This goal is being 

achieved partly through partnerships that NASA has developed 

with the FAA, other government agencies, the UAS stakeholder 

community, and the designated FAA UAS Test Sites. This paper 

reports the technical and operational capabilities demonstrated 

during the UTM flight demonstration, March 6 through May 30, 

2018. The demonstration featured geographically diverse 

operations, involving FAA UAS Test Sites in Alaska, Nevada, 

New York, North Dakota, Texas and Virginia. The 

demonstration leveraged the contributions of 30 partner 

organizations serving as UAS service suppliers, UAS operators, 

and/or providers of sensors, surveillance, connectivity, and 

management roles. Utilizing the UTM architecture developed at 

NASA, the demonstration explored 11 use cases for small UAS 

operations to highlight UTM capabilities at what NASA calls 

“Technical Capability Level (TCL) 3.” TCL 3 is characterized 

by multiple small UAS safely operating in moderately populated 

areas and beyond the visual line of sight of their operators. The 

TCL 3 flights demonstrated the basic feasibility of such 

operations in the UTM environment, including USS exchanges; 

communication, navigation and surveillance functions; sense 

and avoid capabilities; and technologies and procedures to 

enable them. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

It is predicted that by 2022 there will be about 

2.4 million hobbyists and over 450,000 commercial 

small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) flying in 

the U.S. airspace [1]. These will be conducting 

diverse commercial, public safety, and hobbyist 

operations often beyond the visual line of sight of 

the operators. The vehicles may be in close 

proximity to each other, in different environments 

ranging from rural areas with sparse population to 

urban areas with dense population. No established 

infrastructure exists today to safely manage these 

operations. NASA’s Unmanned Aircraft System 

(UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) project aims to 

enable access to low-altitude airspace for small 

UAS in a safe, efficient, scalable, and fair manner. 

NASA is collaborating with the FAA, UAS Test 

Sites, and industry to develop and test a UTM 

system research prototype to help identify 

requirements for an operational system. NASA has 

conducted its own flight demonstrations [2] and 

National Campaigns to assess the feasibility of 

operations at Technical Capability Levels (TCL) 1 

and 2 [3-6]. The UTM Project partnered with six 

UAS Test Sites to perform UAS operations as part 

of the UTM “TCL 3 Flight Demonstration.” TCL 3 

is the third of four increasingly complex TCLs that 

support the entire range of sUAS operations. The 

TCL 3 environment involves enabling multiple 

beyond-visual-line-of-sight (BVLOS) operations, 

with some manned aircraft in proximity, and in 

suburban-like moderately populated areas. An 

overview of the flight demonstration, including 

tests sites, partners, and technical objectives, is 

presented in this paper. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II. BACKGROUND 

The expected increase in sUAS operations and 

proposed applications from industry and public 

safety entities was an impetus to the research and 

development of a UTM system [7-9]. In 2015, 

NASA and the FAA formed the UTM Research 

Transition Team (RTT) with the goal of identifying 

UTM capabilities and technologies that NASA will 

transfer to the FAA. There are four working groups: 

Concepts and Use Cases, Data Exchange and 

Architecture, Sense and Avoid, and 

Communication and Navigation. NASA presented 

and published an initial Concept of Operations in 

2016 [10] and jointly with the FAA released an 

official UTM RTT Plan [11] and an updated 

Concept of Operations [12]. In addition to flight 

demonstrations, NASA has tested key components 

of the UTM system in simulation, especially data 

exchange between the components [13, 14]. 

UTM has become relevant outside of the United 

States. In 2015, European aviation stakeholders 

developed a Riga Declaration in which they stressed 

the need for the development of drone services, 

technologies, and standards to enable safe 

integration of drones into the European airspace 

[15]. A study sponsored by the Single European Sky 

ATM Research (SESAR) Joint Undertaking (JU) 

[16] led to the European Commission proposing to 

create an automated traffic management system for 

drones operating at low altitudes (referred to as the 

U-Space). In November 2017, the commission 

announced a push to speed up implementation of 

European Union drone rules [17]. SESAR JU 

forecasts indicate that all of the services planned as 

part of the European Union’s UAS traffic 

management (UTM) program will be available by 

2035, and that it will cost EUR 4.095 billion to 

create and will deliver around EUR 123 billion in 

benefits [17]. In March 2018, SESAR published its 

UTM Master Plan [18]. A paper was published 

describing the European approach to regulation and 

standardization and coordination with international 

and national agencies [19]. Then, in October 2018, 

the European Commission released a draft 

document for the regulation of the operation of 

unmanned aircraft [20]. The Concept of Operations 

for European UTM Systems (CORUS) project 

within the context of SESAR involves nine partner 

organizations and is tasked to detail the use of USpace to allow for socially acceptable and safe use 

of drones. The deliverable is scheduled for release 

in June 2019 [21]. 

Many industry partners have been involved in 

NASA’s UTM efforts through participation in field 

demonstrations and NASA-FAA working groups 

[4, 10, 14]. Internationally, Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Traffic Management (UTM) stakeholders 

have formed the Global UTM Association 

(GUTMA) consortium, which includes members 

from 20 countries [https://gutma.org/]. Eurocontrol 

has a list, “UTM Current State of the Art,” of other 

UTM systems being developed worldwide [22]. 

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) 

collaborated with NASA in integrating their 

Integrated Aircraft Operation System for Disaster 

Relief (D-NET) with NASA’s current UTM 

prototype as part of a research project. This was 

used to evaluate how the integrated system could 

efficiently be used to help maintain safety during 

relief operations [23]. 

The UTM Project is interested in accelerating 

stakeholder development of UTM components 

and in demonstrating scenarios across a wide 

range of operating environments, using the current 

UTM architecture, and with a wide range of UAS 

platforms and UAS Service Suppliers. In the UTM 

system, the UAS Service Supplier (USS) is a key 

component. Its main role is to support missions by 

the UAS operators. Its functions support the 

planning of UAS operations, provide information 

to UAS Operators during their operations, assist in 

strategic deconfliction of the UTM airspace, and 

bridge communication between UAS Operators 

and the Flight Information Management System 

(FIMS). The FIMS is a central, cloud-based 

component that acts both as a bridge to the 

existing National Airspace System (NAS) and as a 

broker of information between stakeholders. 

Connections to the FIMS are allowed from USSs 

that meet minimum requirements related to 

functionality, quality of service, and reliability 

[12]. 

III. APPROACH 

Six FAA UAS Test Sites were contracted to 

develop scenarios for demonstration, evaluation, 

and refinement of concepts, technologies, and 

capabilities related to four main areas of research 

identified by the NASA/FAA Research Transition 

Team: Data Exchange and Information (DAT), 

Concept Use Cases (CON), Communication, 

Navigation, and Surveillance (CNS); Sense and 

Avoid (SAA). A total of 20 specific flight tests were 

designed to probe these research areas. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The objective of the DAT focus area was to 

identify gaps in the UTM prototype model, refine 

Application Programming Interface (API) 

definitions, and define procedures during times of 

uncertainty such as a loss of a USS. Latencies such 

as those between USS submissions and exchange of 

information between the FIMS and USSs were 

investigated in the DAT scenarios. 

The objective of the CON focus area was to 

refine the UTM concept for TCL 3 and its 

envisioned environment while also providing 

insight into the considerations necessary looking 

ahead to TCL4. Some examples of CON areas of 

interest included BVLOS landing accuracy and 

message timing for alerts for USS and sUAS such 

as when a sUAS is approaching a restricted 

airspace. Another was determining what UTM 

information should be publicly accessible. For this, 

some companies developed public portal 

applications. 

The objective of the CNS focus was to explore 

ways to ensure that sUAS are under control of an 

operator and remain within a defined, authorized 

area. The CNS focus included communication and 

navigation system performance and radio frequency 

(RF) environment characterization. CNS 

technologies of interest included augmented 

navigation, direct and distributed communication 

(C2) links, and fourth generation long-term 

evolution (4G LTE) telecommunication. 

The objective of the SAA focus area was to 

assess different separation mitigation strategies and 

interoperability of technologies. These included 

vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), dedicated short-range 

communication (DSRC), and interaction between 

ground-based and airborne radar. Key research 

questions include (a) when should the timelines 

between USS mitigations and onboard mitigations 

overlap, and (b) what procedures should be in place 

to ensure separation in off-nominal conditions? 

IV. METHOD 

The Flight Demonstration activities occurred 

between March 6 and May 30, 2018, 

encompassing 536 UAS sorties. Six FAA UAS 

Test Sites hosted the flight demonstration 

activities: Alaska, Nevada, New York, North 

Dakota, Texas and Virginia. Table 1 shows the 

distribution of the 536 completed flights at each 

test site. The sites conducted different sets of 

flight operations that probed some or all of the 

four focus areas. Each of the six test sites offered 

unique environments in which to demonstrate 

capabilities. For example, one site was at high 

altitude with ground obstacles of varying height. 

Another site included over 300 structures, open 

spaces, and lakes which helped emulate both 

suburban and rural areas. A variety of equipment 

and infrastructure at the sites and on the sUAS 

such as radars, LIDARs, and ADS-B were used to 

support the flight demonstration. 

The sites partnered with 30 unique entities, 

including 13 sUAS operating companies, eight 

USS, five management and support companies, 

and eight companies providing sensor/surveillance/connectivity capabilities. Some of the 

companies participated as both operators and 

USSs. A total of 31 vehicles were flown (16 

unique types) with a mix of multicopters, fixed 

wing, hybrids, and helicopters. 

Different data collection methods were 

employed. The Data Management Plan (DMP) 

refers to the data collected by the UAS Test Sites, 

including ground control station, vehicle/operator, 

and surveillance data. The DMP data were 

uploaded to a NASA UTM website after the 

completion of the Flight Demonstration. The 

USSs submitted real-time data to the USS Data 

Collector (UDC). 

 Table 1. Number of Flights per Test Site 

Test Site Number of Flights 

Alaska 171 

North Dakota 69 

Nevada 60 

New York 60 

Texas 32 

Virginia 144 

Total 536 

V. RESEARCH FOCUS AREAS DEMONSTRATED 

The objective of the UTM TCL 3 Flight 

Demonstration was to characterize the behavior of 

the UTM system components in terms of four key 

focus areas: Data Exchange and Information 

(DAT), Concept Use Cases (CON), 

Communication, Navigation, and Surveillnace 

(CNS), and Sense and Avoid (SAA). Although not 

formally part of the TCL 3 Flight Demonstration, 

NASA also informally evaluated enabling 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

technologies for sUAS operations including 

airborne and ground system functions [24] as they 

relate to the SAA and CNS focus areas. 

A. Data Exchange and Information (DAT) 

The goal of the six DAT tests was to exercise 

the system architecture—including the USSs, 

FIMS, and operators—to demonstrate that it could 

support identified concept use cases and had means 

to accommodate certain failures. The DAT are the 

following: 

DAT 1: End-to-end UAS Reports (UREP)-

Operators submit UREPs (possibly through 

USS) during flights. 

DAT 2: FIMS Failure- Simulate FIMS or a key 

FIMS component failing while there are active 

flights. 

DAT 3: USS Failure- Simulate USS or a key 

USS component failing while there are active 

flights under its management. 

DAT 4: Remote ID- Test UAS ID 

concept. Drone is registered with UTM Public 

Key Infrastructure (PKI) and broadcasts 

identity information. Received on ground and 

properly identified by authorities. 

DAT 5: USS-USS Negotiations- Operator A 

uses USS Y to plan and execute a 

mission. Operator B uses USS Z to plan and 

execute a mission. These missions overlap in 

some way. USS Y and USS Z use data 

exchanges to negotiate a resolution to the 

conflict in a strategic time horizon. 

DAT 6: Weather Services- Use a UTM-focused 

weather service to aid in the planning of an 

operation. The weather data should be 

provided via a defined and published interface. 

A UREP has a similar functionality to a Position 

Report (AIREP) or a Pilot Weather Report (PIREP) 

in today’s conventional NAS operations. UREPs 

are data that are provided to the UTM System that 

can be shared with other stakeholders to provide 

better situational awareness. A UREP allows for 

reporting observable airspace activity as well as 

weather phenomena. The submission and retrieval 

of UREPs relies on automated processes [13]. 

Four test sites included the exchange of UREP 

messages in their demonstration activities. NASA 

and its partners at those sites used the UREP 

mechanism to exchange weather and airspace data. 

Over 26,000 UREPs were communicated via 

automated or manual processes to enhance operator 

awareness of airspace activity. Results to be 

presented in a future publication. 

The Remote ID testing provided the first 

coordinated demonstration of a variety of 

technologies for identifying sUAS [25]. 

B. Concept Use Cases (CON) 

The CON tests successfully demonstrated the 

following: 

CON 1: Beyond-Visual-Line-of-Sight (BVLOS) 

Landing 

CON 2: Contingency Management 

CON 3: Public Portal 

CON 4: Multiple TCL 2/TCL 3 Operations for a 

Sustained Period 

CON 5: FIMS/USS Interaction When a Vehicle 

Heads Towards Unauthorized Airspace. 

CON 1 demonstrated the procedures and 

performance associated with conducting landings 

and subsequent takeoffs while operating BVLOS. 

Package deliveries while BVLOS were also 

performed as part of this test. CON 2 explored the 

response process and demonstrated the flow of 

information during contingency management 

responses to simulated off-nominal, emergency 

situations such as a loss of communication and 

navigation and how this would be communicated 

through the UTM system and the procedures 

involved. CON 3 showcased the concept of a 

“Public Portal”: a prototype interface to access 

and visualize UTM data to improve situation 

awareness of operations. CON 4 required a 

scenario running for a few hours with multiple 

interacting TCL-2/3 operations (e.g. multiple 

deliveries, traffic monitoring, infrastructure 

inspection, real estate photography) so as to 

provide a window into complex operations in a 

dense airspace environment. 

The CON 5 test addressed the concept area of 

interactions within the UTM architecture when a 

vehicle approaches and breaches specified areas of 

airspace, which were considered unauthorized 

airspace for the purposes of the demonstration. 

With respect to CON 5, three test sites performed 

operations as part of the test. Airspace structures 

utilized as part of the tests varied to include 

established Class E boundaries, static volumes 

instantiated prior to operations, and dynamic 

airspace volumes activated while UTM operations 

were already in progress. Regardless of the type of 

airspace structure used, the USS functionality 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

demonstrated a phased alerting scheme where an 

operator first received a proximity warning message 

when the vehicle was within 3038 ft (~0.5 nautical 

miles) of the airspace boundary. Another message 

was sent to the operator if and when the vehicle 

breached the bounds of the unauthorized airspace. 

Standard conformance monitoring protocols were 

also in place that first alerted the operator to Nonconforming or Rogue UTM states when vehicles 

were intentionally diverted to exit the Operation 

Volume and subsequently approach and enter the 

identified airspace as part of the testing protocol. 

Results are discussed in [28]. 

C. Communication, Navigation, and Surveillance 

(CNS) 

During the TCL 3 Flight Demonstration, three 

aspects of CNS were demonstrated. In CNS 1, 

participating FAA UAS Test Site operators were 

directed to equip sUAS with redundant Command 

and Control (C2) systems, send a maneuver 

command via the primary system, and then verify 

execution of the sent command. This was repeated 

using the redundant system to demonstrate 

redundant command and control in maintaining 

operational control of sUAS. In CNS 2, operators 

were directed to fly sUAS into an area obstructed 

from GPS line of sight while tracking the sUAS’s 

position with an independent ground truth system. 

This demonstrated the ability of sUASs to stay 

within their approved airspace even with the loss of 

onboard GPS signals. In CNS 3 , the operators were 

directed to fly sUAS with Radio Frequency (RF) 

channel-sensing payload. This was done to 

characterize the wireless RF communications 

environment at low altitude, focusing on LTE 4G 

frequency bands. In [26, 27], the design of the RF 

channel-sensing payload and the associated Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) test are discussed. 

Jung elaborates on the results of these CNS tests 

[29]. 

D. Sense and Avoid (SAA) 

The sense and avoid testing consisted of six 

individual tests that demonstrated core challenges 

with keeping vehicles safely separated from other 

air traffic. To address the hazard associated with 

two sUAS having a mid-air collision, SAA 1 

demonstrated air-to-air collision avoidance between 

two participating equipped sUASs using dedicated 

short-range communication (DSRC) radios to 

support vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication. 

DSRC was more effective at close proximity (~.5 

km or less) and under slow closure rates. Further 

optimization of radios, guidance of antennae 

position, and evaluation of required power output is 

expected to improve performance at faster speeds 

and farther communication ranges. 

To address the hazard posed by transponderequipped (e.g. cooperative) manned aircraft, SAA 2 

demonstrated successful resolution of lateral air-toair conflicts between a sUAS and manned aircraft 

using ADS-B “in” on the sUAS and ADS-B “out” 

on the manned aircraft. Resolution of vertical 

separation conflicts was not demonstrated using 

ADS-B. 

SAA 3 and SAA 4 illustrated the challenge of 

using airborne or ground-based radar, respectively, 

to mitigate conflicts between sUAS and nontransponder-equipped (i.e., non-cooperative) 

manned aircraft. Low size, weight and power 

(SWaP) airborne radar did not provide sufficient 

range to support the recommended well-clear 

definition, had high false alerts, and may be better 

suited for collision avoidance rather than sense and 

avoid. Low SWaP ground-based radar 

demonstrated better performance and fewer false 

alerts than airborne radar, but multiple sensors may 

be needed to provide sufficient coverage. 

These limitations highlight the rationale for the 

UTM’s layered approach to conflict management. 

Airborne and ground-based separation mitigations 

are used in redundant layers spanning different time 

horizons. SAA 1-4 demonstrated different 

individual mitigation technologies or strategies to 

address key airborne hazards, while SAA 5 

demonstrated their interoperability when 

combining different separation mitigation 

technologies on the same platform. The SAA 6 tests 

investigated whether DSRC could be extended to 

support air-to-ground UAS remote identification 

and obstacle avoidance. 

VI. SUMMARY 

The UTM project at NASA has continued 

developing and testing a UTM system that will 

enable access to low-altitude airspace for small 

UAS. The TCL 3 Flight Demonstration was the 

third of four flight tests in the planned progression. 

A general overview of the demonstration and its 

outcomes was presented in this paper. The goal of 

TCL 3 was to demonstrate, evaluate, and refine the 

functional design and procedures, technology 

prototypes, and the UTM Concept of Operations. 

The Flight Demonstration activities were 

focused on the four areas; Data Exchange and 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Information (DAT); Concept Use Cases (CON); 

Communication, navigation, and surveillance 

(CNS); and Sense and Avoid (SAA) which are 

priority areas of interest to the NASA-FAA 

Research Transition Team. These demonstrations 

were conducted during 33 flight days at six FAA 

UAS designated test sites: Alaska, Nevada, New 

York, North Dakota, Texas and Virginia. This 

provided a wide range of operating environments, 

USSs and UAS platforms. Eleven use cases were 

demonstrated, including package deliveries, 

infrastructure inspection, disaster response, coastal 

video surveys, and contingency management. 

Thirty unique entities partnered with the test sites to 

participate in the flight demonstrations. The TCL 3 

Flight Demonstration successfully demonstrated 

the UTM technologies and procedures of safe sUAS 

operations given the assumptions and conditions of 

TCL 3. Lessons learned from TCL 3 contributed 

directly to the next flight demonstration, TCL 4, 

which are expected to take place in the summer of 

2019. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

The authors would like to thank the NASA UTM 

team members for their contribution to the TCL 3 

Flight Demonstration. Thanks are also extended to 

the many dedicated individuals at the FAA UAS 

Test Sites and the organizations who partnered with 

them. 

REFERENCES 

[1] “FAA Releases Aerospace Forecast.” [Online], Accessed: January 11, 

2019. https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=89870 

[2] M. Johnson, J. Jung, J. Rios, J. Mercer, J. Homola, T. Prevot, D. 

Mulfinger, and P. Kopardekar, “Flight Test Evaluation of an 

Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management (UTM) Concept for 

Multiple Beyond-Visual-Line-of-Sight Operations,” 12th USA/Europe 

Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar 

(ATM2017), Seattle, WA, June 26–30, 2017.. 

[3] J. Rios, “NASA UAS Traffic Management National Campaign: 

Operations Across Six UAS Test Sites,” 35th Digital Avionics Systems 

Conference (DASC), Sacramento, CA, 2016. 

[4] A. S. Aweiss, B. Owens, J. L. Rios, J. Homola, and C. P. Mohlenbrink, 

“Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) 

National Campaign II,” AIAA SciTech Forum, , Kissimmee, FL., 

January 8–12, 2018. 

[5] J. Homola, C. Mohlenbrink, Q. Dao, L. Claudatos, L. Martin, and Joey 

Mercer, “UAS Technical Capability Level 2 Unmanned Aircraft 

System Traffic Management (UTM) Flight Demonstration: Description 

and Analysis,” IEEE-DASC, St. Petersburg, FL. 

September 17–21, 2017. 

[6] J. Jung, C. R. Drew, S. Nag, E. O. Torres, A. K. Ishihara, M. Do, and 

H. C. Modi, “Initial Approach to Collect Small Unmanned Aircraft 

System Off-nominal Operational Situations Data,” AIAA Aviation 

2018, Atlanta, GA., June 25–29, 2018. 

[7] “Google UAS Airspace System Overview,” presented at the 2015 

UTM Convention at NASA Ames, Moffett Field, CA., [Online], 

Accessed: January 11, 2019. 

https://utm.arc.nasa.gov/docs/GoogleUASAirspaceSystemOverview5 

pager[1].pdf. 

[8] “Determining Safe Access with a Best-Equipped, Best-Served Model 

for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems,” Amazon white paper, 

October, 2015, [Online], Accessed: January 12, 

2019. https://utm.arc.nasa.gov/docs/Amazon_Determining%20Safe% 

20Access%20with%20a%20Best-Equipped,%20Best-Served%20Mod 

el%20for%20sUAS[2].pdf. 

[9] “Revising the Airspace Model for the Safe Integration of Small 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems,” Amazon white paper, October, 2015, 

[Online], Accessed: January 12, 2019]. 

https://utm.arc.nasa.gov/docs/Amazon_Revising%20the%20Airspace 

%20Model%20for%20the%20Safe%20Integration%20of%20sUAS[6 

].pdf. 

[10] P. Kopardekar, J. Rios, T. Prevot, M. Johnson, J. Jung, and J. E. 

Robinson III, “Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management 

(UTM) Concept of Operations,” presented at the 16th AIAA Aviation 

Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, 

Washington, DC. , June 13–17, 2016. 

[11] “UAS Traffic Management (UTM) Research Transition Team (RTT) 

Plan 2017”, [Online], Accessed: January 12, 

2019. https://www.faa.gov/uas/research_development/traffic_manage 

ment/media/FAA_NASA_UAS_Traffic_Management_Research_Plan 

.pdf 

[12] “Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management (UTM) Concept of 

Operations,” Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, 

May 18, 2018 [Online], Accessed: January 15, 2019 

https://utm.arc.nasa.gov/docs/2018-UTM-ConOps-v1.0.pdf 

[13] J. L. Rios, I. S. Smith, and D. R. Smith, “NASA Technical 

Memorandum-UAS Reports (UREPs): Enabling Exchange of 

Observation Data Between UAS Operations,” Moffett Field, CA, 

February, 2017. 

[14] J. L. Rios, D. G. Mulfinger, I. S. Smith, P. Venkatesan, D. R. Smith, V. 

Baskaran, and L. Wang, “NASA Technical Memorandum-UTM Data 

Working Group Demonstration 1 Final Report,” Moffett Field, CA, 

April, 2017. 

[15] Riga Declaration on Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems, 

“Framing the future of aviation,” Riga, Latvia, March 6, 2015, [Online], 

Accessed: January 10, 

2019]. https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/air/ne 

ws/doc/2015-03-06-drones/2015-03-06-riga-declaration-drones.pdf 

[16] SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research) Joint Undertaking, 

“Europeans Drones Outlook Study: Unlocking the value for Europe,” 

November, 2016, [Online], Accessed: January 12, 2019. 

https://www.sesarju.eu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/European 

_Drones_Outlook_Study_2016.pdf 

[17] Florian Guillermet, “High-level plan to integrate all categories of 

drones in Europe,” presented at the High level Conference on Drones, 

Helsinki, November 2017, [Online], Accessed: January 12, 2019. 

https://www.sesarju.eu/sites/default/files/documents/events/HighLeve 

lConferenceDrone-FG.pdf 

[18] Florian Guillermet, “European UTM Master Plan: Roadmap for the 

safe integration of drones into all classes of airspace,” March 8, 2018, 

[Online], Accessed: January 10, 2019. 

https://www.sesarju.eu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/European 

%20ATM%20Master%20Plan%20Drone%20roadmap.pdf 

[19] ICAO Working Paper, “UTM Integration in Europe: Roadmap for the 

safe integration of drones into all classes of airspace,” presented at the 

Thirteenth Air Navigation Conference, Montreal, Canada, October 

9-19, 2018, [Online], Accessed: January 10, 2019. 

https://www.icao.int/Meetings/anconf13/Documents/WP/wp_051_en. 

pdf 

[20] Commission Implementing Regulation on rules and procedures for the 

operation of unmanned aircraft (draft) and Annex October 8, 2018, 

[Online], Accessed: January 10, 2019. 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/betterregulation/initiatives/2018drones_en 

[21] “Concept of Operations for EuRopean UTM Systems”, [Online], 

Accessed: January 12, 2019. 

https://trimis.ec.europa.eu/project/concept-operations-european-utmsystems#tab-outline 

[22] http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/utm-current-state-art 

[23] J. Homola, M. Johnson, P. Kopardekar, A. Andreeva-Mori, D. Kubo, 

K. Kobayashi, and Y. Okuno, "UTM and D-NET: NASA and JAXA’s 
 

 

 

 

Collaborative Research on Integrating Small UAS with Disaster 

Response Efforts," 2018 Aviation Technology, Integration, and 

Operations Conference, AIAA AVIATION Forum, Atlanta, GA., June 

25–29, 2018. 

[24] R. Kerczewski, R. D. Apaza, A. N. Downey, J. Wang, and K. J. 

Matheou, “Assessing C2 Communications for UAS Traffic 

Management,” ICNS 20, Herndon, VA, April 10–12, 2018. 

[25] A. Ishihara, J. Rios, and P. Venkatesan, “Remote ID for Rapid 

Assessment of Flight and Vehicle Information,” AIAA 2019 SciTech 

Forum, San Diego, CA, January 7-11, 2019. 

[26] J. Jung, C. Ippolito, C. Rogers, R. Kerczewski, Downey, and K. 

Matheou, “Small Unmanned Aircraft Electromagnetic Interference 

(EMI) Initial Assessment,” ICNS 2018, Herndon, VA, April 10–12, 

2018. 

[27] A. J. Moore , S. Balachandran, S. Young, E. Dill, M. J. Logan, L. Glaab, 

C. Munoz, and M. Consiglio, “Test for Enabling Technologies for Safe 

Urban Operations,” presented at the 2018 AIAA Aviation 

Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Atlanta, GA, 

June 25–29, 2018. 

[28] J. Homola, L. Martin, M. Cencetti, and A. Aweiss, “UAS Traffic 

Management (UTM) Technical Capability Level 3 (TCL3) Flight 

Demonstration: Concep Tests and Results,” 38tth DASC 2019, San 

Diego, CA, September 8-12, 2019. , in press. 

[29] J. Jung, S. Nag, H. C. Modi, “Effectiveness of Redundant 

Communications Systems in Maintaining Operational Control of Small 

Unmanned Aircraft,” 38tth DASC 2019, San Diego, CA, September 8-

12, 2019. , in press.