A comparison of two novel approaches for conducting detect and avoid flight test

Abstract

This paper compares two approaches developed by the National Research Council of Canada to conduct “near-miss” intercepts in flight test, and describes a new method for assessing the efficacy of these trajectories. Each approach used a different combination of flight test techniques and displays to provide guidance to the pilots to set-up the aircraft on a collision trajectory and to maintain the desired path. Approach 1 only provided visual guidance of the relative azimuth and position of the aircraft, whereas Approach 2 established the conflict point (latitude/longitude) from the desired geometry, and provided cross track error from the desired intercept as well as speed cueing for the arrival time. The performance of the approaches was analyzed by comparing the proportion of time where the predicted closest approach distance was below a desired threshold value. The analysis showed that Approach 2 resulted in more than double the amount of time spent at or below desired closest approach distance across all azimuths flown. Moreover, since less time was required to establish the required initial conditions, and to stabilize the flight paths, the authors were able to conduct 50% more intercepts.