DAT 4: UAS Identification

DAT 4 evaluated the general effectiveness for retrieving vehicle/operator information from a registered vehicle that is broadcasting a UAS Identification (UAS ID) signal. Test sites were

encouraged to develop multiple configurations or implementations of the concept for this test. In one case, a test site identified two vehicles flying simultaneously using three different communication methods; ADS-B, secure C2, and an infrared beacon. Other crews noted that this scenario could be made complex but that they had designed a simple scenario that looked at when the UAS ID dropped out. Survey questions asked about this data exchange (information exchange), while debrief

discussions focused on the crews’ experiences during the test and technical issues (Table 10). Table 10. DAT 4: Discussion Topics and their Notional

Categorization into Information Themes

Information Category Site 4

Information property Information meets user

Operator status 15

Methods 8

Automation 12

Concept 11

Overall, crews reported that their DAT 4 testing went well. They enjoyed the scenarios the site had put together and thought the test showed some interesting aspects of the concept. Crews reported that the UREPs added awareness and they liked the interrogation feature. Some crews took part in a scenario in which the UAS ID dropped intentionally as the vehicle flew away to test the effect of having no identification. Other crews reported that it took them a long while to find the “bad actor” vehicle when it was not reporting. However, other UAS’ IDs dropped unintentionally as they flew further from their GCS, causing the same effect of lack of SA, but in this case, they could not switch the UAS ID back on, and had to wait until the vehicle came back within range to receive UAS ID reports.

Participants agreed that some aspects of DAT 4 could be more streamlined and reported that they had added some features to their USS clients (above the basic test requirements) that they found useful. The group reported that NASA had issues participating in their DAT 4 test, because on that day there were too many connections into the NASA server, i.e., the server had more traffic than it could manage. Once the issues on NASA’s side had been resolved, the problems for the test site cleared up as well.

4.7.1 Information Exchange

Participants were asked about the usefulness and timeliness of the UVIN/UAS IDs that they received in the DAT 4 survey (Figure 10). With only two sites responding to these questions, it should be noted that participants were looking at different USS client displays. Taken overall, participants at both sites rated the data exchange process favorably. On average, they thought the UAS ID data exchanges were “useful” (𝑥 = 5.6) and “quite timely” (𝑥 = 5.3).

Figure 10. UVIN/ UAS ID data exchange usefulness and timelines (n = 18–19). Note: Rating scale was 1–7; y-axis is longer to show SD.

4.7.2 Operator: Communications

Participants suggested that voice communications (over the radio) worked well in certain circumstances. They noted that if you were a UAS operator working where there are manned aircraft, a good way to ensure broad situation awareness among all parties would be to announce your intentions on the radio in the same way that pilots of small general (GA) aircraft do. To do this, all UAS operators would need to know how to follow aviation radio conventions and carry a

handheld radio. The participants acknowledged that this may not be a scalable solution if there are hundreds of UAS in the air but in a local area with just a few operations this could be a workable solution.

4.7.3 Concept

One crew stated that they thought the concept was useful to enhance situation awareness for their operation to be able to identify a UFO in real-time. Crews noted that the UAS ID procedure will identify operators who are “clueless” but not those who are malicious. In general, crews reported that pilots will comply with the UAS ID procedures as they do not want to get into trouble, but again, those who have ill-intent will not care about this. One crew noted that the registered user for their vehicle, who was revealed during the UAS ID test, was someone who no longer worked in the group. They commented that managing and checking valid information attached to UAS ID could be a large task.

4.7.4 Automation: Technical

A number of technical issues were raised during debrief discussions:

• Crews thought that when they were flying their vehicle away from their GCS, that the vehicle itself shielded the UVIN/UAS ID transmission. More testing is required to explore this.

• Crews had some concerns that the ISN spectrum may not be broad enough for the usage that it will get for UAS ID transmission but thought that it worked well.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Data exchange usefulness Data exchange timeliness

Me an d at a ex ch an ge us ef ul ne ss

Data exchange properties Site 3 Site 4 Very

high

Very low

• Crews noted that they did not have a good idea of what the transmission station searches for as it looks for the UAS ID but that it seemed to work well in this small- scale test.

• They also wondered whether pilots will push-back if they have to purchase more equipment/ tools for their UAS (like the UAS ID transmitter).

• There were still some bugs in the software, one crew noted that there was no indication when there was an imminent intrusion into their volume, while another crew said there was no alert when there was an imminent intrusion.

• Another crew could not see the “unidentified” vehicles on their displays.