1 

Supporting Disaster Relief Operations through UTM: 

Operational Concept and Flight Tests of Unmanned and

Manned Vehicles at a Disaster Drill

Adriana Andreeva-Mori,1 Daisuke Kubo,2 Keiji Kobayashi,3 and Yoshinori Okuno4 

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Mitaka, Tokyo, 181-0015, Japan 

Jeffrey R. Homola,5 Marcus Johnson,6 and Parimal Kopardekar7 

NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, 94035, United States of America 

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has been developing a system to manage 

resource allocation during disaster response operations and to optimize the application of 

available assets (D-NET). NASA has been engaged in research to enable the large-scale 

commercial application of UAS in low altitude airspace as part of the UAS Traffic 

Management (UTM) project. Since 2016, JAXA and NASA have partnered to investigate the 

safe and efficient integration of UAS in disaster relief operations. In October 2018, a flight 

test, which occurred as part of a large-scale disaster drill in Ehime Prefecture, Japan, 

successfully demonstrated that D-NET and UTM can contribute to the safe and efficient use 

of airspace by both manned and unmanned aircraft. This paper presents the technical 

challenges in UAS integration in disaster relief and D-NET/UTM integration and technical 

solutions developed to address these challenges. The scenarios used to test the integration of 

both systems in a real-world context, together with flight tests results and analysis are also 

shown. The flight tests successfully demonstrated the application of UASs to disaster response 

and showed they can safely cooperate with manned aircraft to improve response efficiency. 

I. Introduction 

Damaged ground infrastructure and vast disaster areas make the use of aircraft, both manned and unmanned, crucial 

for efficient disaster response. Aircraft and vehicle allocation, mission planning, and execution are usually managed by 

dispatchers at operation command centers set at local government or national levels. In cases of a large-scale disaster, 

however, human dispatchers and controllers need decision-support tools to manage limited resources safely and 

efficiently. Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has been developing a system to manage resource allocation 

and provide real-time connection between aircraft and command centers during immediate post-disaster relief, and to 

optimize the application of available assets (D-NET) [1]. NASA has been engaged in research to enable the large-scale 

commercial application of UAS in low altitude airspace as part of the UAS Traffic Management (UTM) project [2]. 

Since 2016, JAXA and NASA have partnered to investigate integration of UAS in disaster relief operations. In October 

2018, a flight test, which occurred as part of a large-scale disaster drill in Ehime Prefecture, Japan, successfully 

demonstrated that D-NET and UTM can contribute to the safe and efficient use of airspace by both manned and 

unmanned aircraft. Connecting the two remote systems (D-NET and UTM) in real time validated the mobility of the 

concept, which was an unprecedented endeavor to date. The benefit and applicability of UTM to the incorporation of 

UAV in disaster response efforts was also shown through data exchanges with D-NET and operators. Our previous 

work discussed the concept of integration of D-NET and UTM systems [3]. This paper will present: 

1. Technical challenges in UAS integration for disaster relief, including review of current technologies and research 

1 Researcher, Next Generation Aeronautical Innovation Hub Center. 

2 Senior Researcher, Next Generation Aeronautical Innovation Hub Center, AIAA Senior Member. 3 Senior Researcher, Next Generation Aeronautical Innovation Hub Center. 

4 Senior Chief Research Engineer, Next Generation Aeronautical Innovation Hub Center, AIAA Senior Member. 5 UTM Integration and Testing Lead, UAS Traffic Management. 

6 Deputy Project Manager, UAS Traffic Management, AIAA Senior Member. 

7 Principal Investigator, UAS Traffic Management, AIAA Associate Fellow. 

Downloaded by NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER on January 13, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2020-2202 

 AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum 

 6-10 January 2020, Orlando, FL 

 10.2514/6.2020-2202 

 Copyright © 2020 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 AIAA SciTech Forum 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. D-NET/UTM integration and technical solutions developed 

Downloaded by NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER on January 13, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2020-2202 

3. The scenarios developed to test the integration of D-NET and UTM in a live environment 

4. Flight test: execution and results 

II. Technical Challenges 

A. Current Technologies Available and State-of-the-Art 

Over the years, the use of UAS in support of disaster response efforts has become progressively more established. For 

example, dating back to 2005, Hurricane Katrina in the southern United States resulted in severe flooding [4]. Others 

like Hurricanes Florence and Harvey years later saw the increased use of UAS and a progression of technologies to 

aid in response efforts as well as greater levels of coordination across response agencies. However, while the use of 

UAS has increased and the technologies advanced, there has not been an established system in place to manage and 

coordinate multiple UAS operations between multiple operators that provided a common situational awareness of 

UAS assets and their status. This situational awareness is critical for operators as well as response managers in 

developing and maintaining an accurate assessment of the current deployment of assets and status of operations, which 

would aid in a more integrated and informed decision making process. In 2015, NASA formally embarked on the 

development and maturation of its UAS Traffic Management (UTM) concept as well as the technical development of 

the associated data and information architecture. The objectives of UTM are to enable a safe, scalable approach to the 

commercial application of small UAS in low altitude airspace that provides flexibility where possible and structure 

where necessary. The integration of Public Safety entities and their operations into the UTM ecosystem has been an 

early focus area and expectation. The application of UTM to disaster response efforts, therefore, is a natural extension 

of the concept that would provide the necessary coordination and situational awareness to facilitate a more optimal 

response. However, the traditional focus with regard to air assets and disaster response has been on manned aircraft 

operations. As a result, there are certain challenges in the further integration of UAS with manned aircraft into the 

overall response picture that require research. The tests performed by NASA and JAXA through the integration of 

UTM and D-NET systems is one step toward addressing those challenges and provides a path ahead. 

B. Pre-flight (flight-planning) Phase Challenges 

The technical challenges associated with UAS integration in disaster relief can be divided into pre-flight and inflight phases. 

In the pre-flight phase, the following challenges should be addressed. 

1) Are missions optimally assigned considering available resources and disaster area? 

In the immediate aftermath of a large-scale disaster, demand (search and rescue missions) exceeds available 

resources (manned and unmanned aircraft, ground vehicles, etc.), which makes vehicle assignment and route 

planning an optimization problem. Vehicle routing has been subject to multiple studies [5], [6], but the scale of the 

problem and fleet heterogeneity pose a problem in real-world applications. 

This particular challenge will be addressed in a follow-on publication. 

2) Are the generated flight plans conflict-free? 

Disaster relief missions are often performed by vehicles belonging to different organizations, which do not 

necessarily coordinate their planning. D-NET centralized mission assignment and flight planning can solve this 

issue, but the option for UASs operated by different operators still needs to be considered. Here, using D-NET/UTM 

translator software (DLinkUTM), real time conflict-free operations were planned and verified. UTM provided the 

necessary safety separation margins. 

3) When flight plans are not conflict-free, can the conflict be resolved by re-planning? 

Strategic deconfliction of the 4 dimensional flight plans can be done by either changing the flight plan geography 

or shifting the flight plan in time. UTM provided information to D-NET for re-planning as part of strategic 

deconfliction. 

C. In-flight Phase Challenges 

The in-flight phase poses the following challenges: 

1) Is the UAS flying according to its flight plan? 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UAS real time telemetry data are transmitted from D-NET to UTM via DLinkUTM. If position report frequency 

does not meet the minimum requirements set by UTM, the UAS will be treated as non-conforming vehicle. UTM 

checks conformance between the flight plan and actual flight, and issues alerts as needed. 

Downloaded by NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER on January 13, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2020-2202 

2) Can the UAS transmit survey information (e.g., victim’s location)? 

A main advantage of UAS is the wide variety of payload and equipment they can carry onboard. In reconnaissance 

missions, information transmitted live from an onboard camera is used to evaluate the damages and identify victims’

locations in real time. In this test, there was no camera onboard the UAS, so the second challenge was not tested. 

However, the state of the victim and disaster area information can be shared through D-NET [7], [8]. 

3) Is the UAS aware of other traffic (manned and unmanned) in the airspace and, if necessary, can the UAS modify 

its flight plan to avoid conflict? 

Nominal UAS operations will, in general, follow a flight plan developed and agreed with operators and relevant 

players prior to the flight. In the case of disaster relief, however, flights of both manned and unmanned vehicles will 

often differ from the original flight plans due to the nature of missions (search and rescue, for example). Therefore 

flight plan modification capability is necessary. In thistest, manned aircraft (JAXA’s experimental helicopter) flight 

plan and position data were submitted to UTM and the vehicle was treated as a priority user. Alerts were issued to 

UAS in the airspace resulting in plan modification to allow the vehicle to safely return to base. 

III. D-NET/UTM Integration 

The integrated system between JAXA’s D-NET and NASA’s UTM is focused on the safe and efficient use of UASs 

in immediate post-disaster relief operations. The integrated operations are described in two stages, corresponding to the 

technical challenge stages (pre-flight and in-flight) discussed in Section II. Mission assignments and planning are done 

in D-NET, thus all trajectories are generated there. Each UAS and helicopter flight plan is essentially a trajectory, made 

of multiple line segments, each defined by the 4D coordinates of its edges. Based on the received UAS trajectories, 

UTM checks that safety constraints are met and sends operational volumes back to D-NET. Helicopter operations, 

however, are visual flight rules (VFR) operations, which often results in large deviations from the original flight plan 

used only as a reference. Originally, UTM was not designed to aid manned aircraft VFR operations, so the volumes 

which would be generated based on the line segmented flight plans will not be sufficiently large to account for actual 

disaster relief helicopter VFR operations. The current D-NET/UTM integration adapts existing capabilities of both 

systems. Therefore, helicopter VFR flights plans are submitted to UTM not as line segments, but as relatively large 

operational volumes. Current disaster relief practices prioritize manned over unmanned aircraft operations. In other 

words, even if there is an accepted UAS operation in a certain airspace, helicopter’s mission will be given priority. To

model accurately such practices, the helicopter is treated as a priority user and its flight plan is always accepted by 

UTM. UTM can either accept or reject a UAS plan, though. The conceptual interaction between D-NET and UTM in 

the pre-flight stage is shown in the left panel of Fig. 1. 

At the in-flight stage (Fig. 1 right panel), D-NET provides UAS and helicopter tracking data to UTM. UTM checks 

the conformance of and can then issue alerts when necessary. Performing conflict detection at both planning and inflight stages contributes to safe mission execution. UAS information (operational volumes and current position) is sent 

to the helicopter as well via a newly-developed function of the already existing D-NET onboard mission support system 

[8]. Further details on the initial architecture and overall concept of operations exploration can be found in [3]. 

D-NET

UTM

• Helicopter telemetry

• Mission information

• UAS telemetry

• Alerts (based on UTM)

• UAS operational volumes

• UAS position

D-NET

UTM

• Helicopter trajectory

(D-NET generated)

• UAS 4D trajectory

(D-NET generated & UTM accepted)

• UAS operational volumes (UTM generated)

Fig. 1 D-NET/UTM conceptual interaction 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In advancing the concept and addressing the above challenges, D-NET and UTM were required to interface and 

communicate in real-time to each other. Although D-NET and UTM can serve as portable systems they were not initially 

designed to exchange information. To address this issue and enable integrated support for disaster relief in real time, 

translator software referred to as DLinkUTM was designed and developed. Fig. 2 presents the architecture and 

information flow of the integrated system. All information exchanges between D-NET and UTM were established 

through DLinkUTM, which maintains concurrent connections to D-NET servers and UTM. Fig. 3 presents a snapshot 

of the DLinkUTM interface in which the green fields marked “DCSV” and “UTM” represented active DLinkUTM

connections to D-NET and UTM respectively. The interface also provides information on the vehicle’s ID (e.g., 

UAV001, UAV002, etc. in Fig. 3), the UTM state of the operation (ACCEPTED for a flight plan been accepted by 

UTM, REJECTED, CANCELLED, etc.), the Globally Unique Flight Identifier (GUFI), and flight plan number for each 

vehicle. 

Downloaded by NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER on January 13, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2020-2202 

D-NET/UTM integration required that UAS operational volumes be visible onboard the helicopter in real time. This 

was achieved by adding such functionality to the existing onboard D-NET mission support technology. D-NET’s

mission support tool is a fully portable system, consisting of a satellite transmission component, a digital antenna and 

a touch-screen display which enables manual input on behalf of the operator onboard the helicopter. 

Supplementary 

Data Providers

Weather

Aircraft base information

Disaster information

Aircraft 

Database Satellite

Vehicle status Satellite imagery

 Onboard equipment

 Home base, etc.

UAS flight plan request

UAS approved flight plan

Volumes

UAS Telemetry

Alerts (position deviations, etc.)

Manned aircraft flight plan

Approved 

flight plan

Alerts Telemetry

UAS 

Ground station

UAS 

Volumes request

Manned aircraft telemetry

JAXA 

D-NET

NASA

UTM

Fig. 3 DLinkUTM translator software snapshot Fig. 2 D-NET/UTM interface architecture 

Fig. 4 D-NET fully-portable onboard mission support system 

IV. Test Scenario 

To test the integration of D-NET and UTM in a realistic and applied context, the following test scenario was 

developed. Following a major disaster event, UASs supported by UTM were assigned to search the disaster area for 

evacuees. While performing the searches a person is discovered awaiting rescue. This information is shared through DNET and a manned helicopter is assigned to perform the rescue. The intended operating area of the helicopter is 

communicated through UTM as a priority operation. In its response, the rescue helicopter enters the airspace originally 

assigned to UASs, which results in notifications via UTM to the UAS operators and subsequent procedures to clear the 

airspace. The helicopter is free to quickly extract and transport the person to a safe location. Unlike in nominal 

operations, in disaster response it is very likely to have a manned aircraft (most often a medevac or rescue helicopter) 

enter airspace originally assigned to an UAV. For all vehicles to operate safely, mission prioritization, planning and 

execution become crucial. The scenario developed for this flight test provided the opportunity to test the capabilities of 

both systems (D-NET and UTM) with respect to these challenges. 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V. Flight Test 

Downloaded by NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER on January 13, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2020-2202 

Based on the above general scenario, a detailed 17-step flight test plan shown in Fig. 5 was developed and conducted 

successfully. Strong winds prevented the live UAV from flying on the day of the disaster drill, but the UAV was 

substituted by a simulated vehicle. The manned aircraft (JAXA’s experimental helicopter) was able to fly and its flight

plans and positioning data were successfully transmitted to UTM. On the day of the disaster drill, two series of flight 

tests were conducted- one in the morning and one in the afternoon. Both followed the same scenario and flight plan as 

shown in . 

Fig. 5 Flight test plan 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. Test Setup 

Downloaded by NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER on January 13, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2020-2202 

In support of the flight test, multiple teams of personnel across multiple locations were involved serving in different 

roles. In Japan, two teams were on station. One team was located at the disaster drill’s dedicated Operations Center in 

Matsuyama City, Ehime Prefecture. This team consisted of JAXA and NASA researchers and technical staff that 

monitored the simulated disaster situation and interfaced with the D-NET and UTM systems. Information exchanges 

with the respective systems were managed from the Operations Center and operational situation awareness was 

maintained through monitoring of data via various interfaces (Fig. 6). Another team of JAXA and NASA researchers 

was located out on the peninsula accompanied by a flight crew and their vehicle. This team’s role was to conduct live 

flight operations of a UAS in support of a coordinated disaster response effort (Fig. 7). A third team was located at 

NASA Ames Research Center in California within the Airspace Operations Laboratory (Fig. 8). The team consisted 

of NASA researchers, engineers, and systems administrators that monitored the test remotely through visualizations 

from the UTM data exchanges as well as communications with the teams in Japan. Systems health were also monitored 

from the laboratory during the test to ensure continuous connectivity and proper functioning. There was also the 

helicopter crew that performed the live manned flight and enabled the interaction with UAS supported through UTM. 

Fig. 6 D-NET and UTM interfaces used by Fig. 7 Crewmember of the flight team at the UAS site 

researchers in the Operations Center 

Fig. 8 Airspace Operations Laboratory at NASA Ames Research Center 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Downloaded by NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER on January 13, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2020-2202 

B. Pre-flight (flight-planning) Phase 

At the beginning of the test, D-NET was connected to NASA’s UAS Service Supplier (USS) through DLinkUTM. 

D-NET provided flight plans compatible with UTM’s flight plan format. The flight plan consisted of several 4D line 

segments, each defined by two 3D points and begin/end times (Table 1). The flight plan for UAV1 (UAV001001_1) 

was sent to UTM, which confirmed there were no conflicting flights in the same airspace and sent an ACCEPTED 

message and associated operational volumes (safety separation margins) for each flight segment. GUFI was assigned 

to UAV001001_1 at this point by UTM. Next, flight plan UAV002001 was sent to UTM, but since it overlapped 

partially with the already accepted UAV001001_1, it was rejected. A key element of the UTM concept is strategic 

deconfliction where, for example, two operations would not be able to share the same airspace without further 

negotiation. In this case, UAV002001’s operation was rejected due to the geographic and temporal overlap of volumes. 

The flight plans were then manually de-conflicted by time shifting the flight plan of UAV2. Note that undergoing 

development includes automatic spatial and temporal de-confliction. The newly-generated flight plan UAV002002 was 

then submitted to UTM (Step 3) and accepted by the system. The first three steps addressed the pre-flight challenges 

discussed in Section II. The flight plan submission times and responses are shown in Table 2. At the end of step 3, the 

dispatchers at the operation centers knew what time the search over the target areas would be completed, thus allowing 

them to plan accordingly for other missions. Furthermore, the time between flight time submission and UTM’sresponse

showed that both systems can communicate in real time with minimum delay. 

Table 1 UAV001001_1 flight plan details 

Dist [m] Speed [m/s] Flight time [s] Flight time [time format] Nominal_Begin Nominal_End FP_BEGIN FP_END

WP1 132.341428 33.504698 Segment1 WP1 WP2 99.7 3 33 0:00:33 9:15:00 9:15:33 Segment1 9:10:00 9:20:33

WP2 132.340471 33.504267 Segment2 WP2 WP3 111.7 3 37 0:00:37 9:15:33 9:16:10 Segment2 9:10:33 9:21:10

WP3 132.339553 33.504891 Segment3 WP3 WP4 233.6 3 78 0:01:18 9:16:10 9:17:28 Segment3 9:11:10 9:22:28

WP4 132.337071 33.505251 Segment4 WP4 WP5 371.4 3 124 0:02:04 9:17:28 9:19:32 Segment4 9:12:28 9:24:32

WP5 132.339507 33.507903 Segment5 WP5 WP3 333.5 3 111 0:01:51 9:19:32 9:21:23 Segment5 9:14:32 9:26:23

Segment6 WP3 WP2 111.7 3 37 0:00:37 9:21:23 9:22:01 Segment6 9:16:23 9:27:01

Segment7 WP2 WP1 99.7 3 33 0:00:33 9:22:01 9:22:34 Segment7 9:17:01 9:27:34

Table 2 Flight plan submission times 

Step Event Submitted by Submitted to Time as recorded by DLinkUTM 

1 UAV001001_1 submission D-NET UTM 08:44:06 

1 UAV001001_1 acceptance UTM D-NET 08:44:10 

2 UAV002001 submission D-NET UTM 08:44:22 

2 UAV002002 rejection UTM D-NET 08:44:24 

3 UAV002002 submission D-NET UTM 08:44:46 

3 UAV002002 acceptance UTM D-NET 08:44:48 

C. In-flight Phase 

In accordance to its flight plan accepted by UTM, UAV001 could take off no earlier than 9:10:00 and complete the 

first leg of the mission between WP1 and WP2 no later than 9:20:33. Once the take-off preparations (this time, simulator 

run preparations) were completed, an “ALL CLEAR” message was sent from D-NET to UTM to activate the mission. 

The simulator DLinkUTM were operated at two different locations to simulate real disaster response environment, and 

connection between the UAV operator and DLinkUTM was established over a mobile phone. To assure that UAV001 

did not go in non-conforming state, i.e. that UTM was aware of the position of the vehicle and it complied with the 

corresponding volume, UAV001 telemetry transmission to D-NET started prior to take-off. Once the UAV001 State 

became ACTIVE, positioning data was sent via DLinkUTM at one-second intervals. Each position update was checked 

against the operation volumes of the flight as part of conformance monitoring. Screenshots of D-NET and UTM user 

interfaces taken at 09:11 JST are shown in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10. At 09:11, Segments 1 and Segments 2 are shown as 

ACTIVE (the lines defining the volumes are bold), while the remaining segments are not active yet. Since UAV001 

has not taken off yet, its flight plan is ACCEPTED (shown in the light green rectangular field in the bottom right corner). 

A comparison with NASA’s visualization tool screenshot shows that both systems could successfully communicate

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

with one another despite their different geographic locations. Telemetry transmission of UAV001 after its takeoff at 

Downloaded by NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER on January 13, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2020-2202 

09:14:03 completed steps 4 and 5. 

Fig. 9 D-NET visualization tool screenshot at the Operation Center in Ehime, Japan 

Fig. 10 UTM visualization tool screenshot from NASA Ames Research Center, USA 

According to our scenario, UAV001 discovered a person needing rescue and relayed that to D-NET, which, in turn 

relayed the victim’s location to the manned aircraft, JAXA’s experimental helicopter JA21RH. The operational volume 

information of the UAVs was relayed to D-NET’s onboard mission support system and shown to the crew, as seen in

Fig. 11. The helicopter crew was therefore informed of the UAV’s flight plan (bold yellow line) and assigned 

operational area (yellow shaded area), as seen in Fig. 12. This contributed to the pilot’s awareness and his preparedness

to plan trajectory changes. 

Fig. 11 Onboard D-NET portable system view. UAV 

area is shown in yellow, and the present helicopter 

position is shown by the red arrow. 

Fig. 12 Sample zoom-in of the UAV flight zones as 

seen onboard D-NET portable system. The yellow 

areas represent the airspace assigned to UAVs. 

Next, at step 6, using D-NET onboard mission support system, a request from the helicopter to UAV001 to clear 

the airspace was sent and received by D-NET at 09:15:56. Handling the manned aircraft as a planned mission within 

UTM required adaptation of existing capabilities, in particular submitting an operational volume to cover the helicopter 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

flight. JA21RH was a visual flight rules (VFR) flight, but for the purposes of this flight test operational volumes 

analogous to the ones assigned to UAV001 were submitted to UTM. The volumes submitted only covered the portion 

of JA21RH’s flight in the proximity of the UAV’s area, as shown in Fig. 13 left panel (a later flight included operation 

volumes that covered the entirety of the helicopter’s flight path to the rescue site (Fig. 13 right panel). JA21RH departed 

from Matsuyama Airport located approximately 50 km away from the UAV flight zone, and it was visible to UTM as 

a planned operation once it was in the volumes about 10 km away from the UAV flight zone. Meanwhile, during the 

in-flight phase, the operation was monitored for conformance with real-time status available for situation awareness. 

JA21RH’s operational volumes overlapped with UAV001001_1 volumes already accepted by UTM. In general, UTM 

assigns airspace based on the first come, first served rule, which would not allow the helicopter to rescue the victim. 

Therefore, priority user’s functionality of UTM was adapted. Flight plan 003001_1 was sent from D-NET to UTM as 

a priority user and was accepted at (step 7). The telemetry of the helicopter which was transmitted through D-NET’s

onboard mission support to D-NET on the ground was then relayed to UTM. Position reports from the helicopter to DNET are available every 20 sec, since the transmission is established through satellite connection and due to cost 

considerations more frequent reports were not feasible. UTM requires more frequent position reports, so DLinkUTM 

kept sending the most recent position every second until a position update from the aircraft was available. Upon 

receiving the flight plan of the priority user JA21RH, UTM sent an alert to D-NET for UAV001 to clear the airspace. 

D-NET then created a new flight plan for the UAV001 to return to base. The modified flight plan UAV001001_2 

included only the current segment and the future segments necessary for the return flight. The flight plan modification 

needed to be done while UAV001 was flying between WP3 and WP4’ (see Fig. 14). UAV001001_2 was accepted by 

UTM and the vehicle could then return safely to base (Fig. 14 and Fig. 15). The UAV operators disarmed the vehicle 

(step 11) and this information was relayed over a mobile phone to the operation center. DLinkUTM sent a CLOSING 

message to UTM which closed the mission (step 12). Once the airspace was clear, JA21RH operational volumes were 

modified to include the airspace previously assigned to UAV001 so that the helicopter can complete its rescue mission 

of the victim located by the unmanned vehicle. The flight tests at the disaster drill did not include actual landing, but 

the helicopter flew over the UAV airspace instead. Once JA21RH left the UAV airspace (step 14) and its assigned 

volumes, the mission was closed (step 15). The original scenario included testing of the simulated UAV002 as well, but 

since UAV001 flights were substituted by simulations due to bad weather, the UAV002 simulations were not conducted, 

so steps 16 and 17 were omitted. 

Downloaded by NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER on January 13, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2020-2202 

Fig. 13 (Left panel) The helicopter operation volumes (shown in magenta) submitted to UTM only covered the 

portion of the flight near the UAV area (shown in orange). The light blue track shows the entire helicopter 

trajectory from its takeoff from Matsuyama Airport to its landing at the same airport. (Right panel) The second 

helicopter flight included a set of operation volumes that encompassed the helicopter’s flight path from takeoff

location to the rescue site. 

Table 3 UAV001001_2 flight plan details 

Dist [m] Speed [m/s] Flight time [s] Flight time [time format] Nominal_Begin Nominal_End FP_BEGIN FP_END

WP1 132.3415 33.5046 Segment1 WP4 WP4' 190 3 63 0:01:03 9:17:28 9:18:32 Segment1 9:12:28 9:23:32

WP2 132.3405 33.50427 Segment2 WP4' WP3 220 3 73 0:01:13 9:18:32 9:19:45 Segment2 9:13:32 9:24:45

WP3 132.3396 33.50489 Segment3 WP3 WP2 111.7 3 37 0:00:37 9:19:45 9:20:22 Segment3 9:14:45 9:25:22

WP4 132.3371 33.50525 Segment4 WP2 WP1 99.7 3 33 0:00:33 9:20:22 9:20:55 Segment4 9:15:22 9:25:55

WP4' 132.3383 33.50658

9 
Downloaded by NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER on January 13, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2020-2202 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 14 UAV001 was sent an alert informing of priority user in the same airspace 

Fig. 15 Helicopter’s operational volume, location and UAV001 modified flight plan 

VI. Flight Test Results and Analysis 

The detailed scenario that was developed allowed for multiple D-NET and UTM capabilities to be tested in a realistic 

disaster recovery environment. 

D-NET and UTM were able to communicate to provide sufficient information exchange for disaster recovery 

support. Throughout preparation and testing, 117 operations were submitted to UTM (Table 4). 363 messages were 

exchanged between both systems through DLinkUTM. The number of positions submitted was 5364, as most operation 

exchanges were meant to test flight planning capabilities and thus did not include position reports. Therefore, there was 

a high number of cancelled operations, as seen in Fig. 16. Flight planning is crucial for efficient disaster relief and this 

collaborative test demonstrated that UTM and D-NET can be used for tactical planning as well. Throughout preparation 

and testing, 79 alerts were sent to D-NET (Table 5). These alerts contributed to safe mission execution and proved that 

both systems are complementary. 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Downloaded by NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER on January 13, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2020-2202 

Table 4 Number of information exchanges Table 5 Message types and counts observed across 

throughout preparation and testing preparation and testing 

Information Counts 

exchanges 

Operations 117 

UTM Messages 363 

Positions 5364 

Message Counts 

Categories 

INFORM 203 

INTENT 81 

ALERT 79 

Fig. 16 Operation statistics (preparation and testing) 

VII. Concluding remarks 

The flight tests conducted at the 2018 Ehime Prefecture disaster drill successfully demonstrated the application of 

UAVs to disaster response and showed they can safely cooperate with manned aircraft to improve response efficiency. 

Connecting two remote systems (D-NET and UTM) in real time validated the mobility of the concept. The benefit and 

applicability of UTM to the incorporation of UAV in disaster response efforts was also shown through data exchanges 

with D-NET and operators. Additionally, the integration of UTM enabled informed planning for safe operations and 

facilitated situation awareness, which are critical elements in disaster response environments. It was the first time to 

have a manned aircraft as a planned operation in UTM, a demonstration of concept and technology which went very 

successfully. The disaster drill flight tests also exposed some of the challenges for D-NET and UTM in disaster response 

applications. Finally, gaining an understanding of the ways in which operators would use the information from both 

manned and unmanned aircraft in such situations provided very valuable feedback for future development. 

References 

[1] Y. Okuno, K. Kobayashi and H. Ishii, "Development of a helicopter operations management system for disaster 

relief missions," Journal of the Americal Helicopter Society, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 1-9, 2016. 

[2] P. Kopardekar, J. Rios, T. Prevot, M. Johnson, J. Jung and J. E. Robinson III, "Umanned AIrcraft Sustem Traffic 

Management (UTM) Concept of Operations," in AIAA Aviation, Technology, Integration and Operations 

Conference, 2016. 

[3] 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,"

in 2018 Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Atlanta, 2018. 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[4] US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, "Use of Small Unmanned Aerial Systems 

for Emergency Management of Flooding," 2019. [Online]. Available: 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/uas/resources/hif19019.pdf. 

Downloaded by NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER on January 13, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2020-2202 

[5] C. Hsueh, H. Chen and H. Chou, "Dynamic Vehicle Routing for Relief Logistics in Natural Disasters," Vehicle 

Routing Problem, pp. 73-84, 2008. 

[6] L. Ozdramar and O. Demir, "A hierarchical clustering and routing procedure for large scale disaster relief 

logistics planning," ransportasearch Part E. 

[7] K. Kobayashi, Y. Okuno and H. Ishii, "Development of Disaster Relief Aircraft Information Sharing Network," 

in The 53rd Aircraft Symposium, Matsuyama, Japan, 2015. 

[8] A. Andreeva-Mori, K. Kobayashi, M. Shindo and Y. Okuno, "Design and Preliminary Evaluation of an 

Integrated Aircraft Operation System for Disaster Relief," in Congress of the International Council of the 

Aeronautical Sciences, Daejeon, Korea, 2016. 

[9] Japan Times, "Drones tested in Japan nuclear disaster drill for the first time near Ikata plant," 30 10 2019. 

[Online]. Available: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/10/30/national/drones-nuclear-drill-ikataehime/#.XeDeZk1DuIo. [Accessed 29 11 2019]. 

[10] D. Kubo and et al., "Development of experimental small UAV equipped with cellular phone data link system," 

ICAS Proceedings, 2006. 

12