## Materials and Methods
Figure 14C,D show distances measured from surveyed target locations vs actual landing points (marked by coins) at a site \(\sim\)1/4 mile from the operator. CON2, contingency initiation: The purpose of this test was to demonstrate the ability to interrupt current operations with a scripted UAS emergency necessitating activation of a prepared contingency. Actions demonstrated included: loiter well clear of the contingency operations, direct/immediate return to base (RTB), and \"ditch\" at a known location using parachute recovery. For efficiency of operations, flights for CON2 were designed to be conducted with interactive courseware for CON4 flight scenarios. Figure 15A shows the S900 hexacopter under canopy during a simulated \"ditch\" scenario; Figure 15B shows the S900 immediately after landing. Figure 5:1 (**A**): Overhead view of baseline airspace volumes for UTM TCL3 and (**B,C**) 3D views of airspace. CON3, public portal: The purpose of this test was to develop a USS client browser and/or app-based mechanism for an anonymous member of the general public to access appropriate UTM information, and to evaluate its effectiveness through a usability study. This test was designed to utilize previously recorded flight test data (CON1/2/4/5) with both public portal and public service provider interfaces used for monitoring of UTM activity. Note: UAF was unable to complete this activity due to the schedule and repurposing of NASA UTM assets required for the development of new USS interfaces. CON4, multiple TCL-2/3 operations for a sustained period: The purpose of this test was to demonstrate the ability of the test site operator (TSO) to fly multiple TCL-2/3 operations for a sustained period (e.g., 2 hrs). The TSO was to conduct an extended scenario with multiple interacting TCL-2/3 operations (e.g., multiple deliveries, traffic monitoring, infrastructure inspection, and real estate photography), and demonstrate that these can be conducted safely in the same airspace in a more realistic dynamic environment. For the efficiency of operations, flights for CON2 were conducted ICW with CON4 flight scenarios. CON5, FIMS/USS interaction when a vehicle heads towards controlled or unauthorized airspace: The purpose of this test was to demonstrate an appropriate FIMS/USS interaction when a UAS heads towards controlled or unauthorized airspace. The TSO was to conduct a test where a UAS flies out of its operations volume and heads towards controlled airspace, and to demonstrate/evaluate the necessary FIMS/USS/UAS interactions supporting the scenarios. UAF was elected to demonstrate two separate categories of scenarios for CON5: (1) statically controlled airspace typically associated with traditional  
Figure 5:2 (**A**) F550 landing remotely at site \(\frac{1}{2}\) mile away; (**B**) S1000 landing at site \(\frac{1}{2}\) mile away (launch site at top of hill in background); and (**C,D**) measurements showing landing of F550 vs. the surveyed point from \(\frac{1}{4}\) mile away. Figure 5:3 (**A**) S900 hexacopter under canopy and (**B**) S900 after landing. manned or UAS flight scenarios and (2) dynamically allocated high priority controlled airspace as a result of emergency operations (e.g., medical evacuation or delivery of critical life-saving supplies). Figure 16A shows airspace selected for the statically controlled airspace mission; Figure 16B shows the airspace used for the dynamically controlled scenario. For the efficiency of operations, flights for CON5 were originally designed to be conducted ICW with CON4 flight scenarios. Originally, CON4 flights were to be flown on two consecutive days, followed by the introduction of simulated contingencies comprising of CON5 scenarios. However, compression of the flight timeline due to weather delays and engineering/communications challenges caused the CON2/4/5 scenario durations and sequencing to be modified to achieve desired flight results for each without jeopardizing the overall flight schedule.